When will the film studios change from old fashion reel tape to a digital HD camera?
I've been looking from different places to see if there is any theaters out there that
support high definition movies. But I got no luck at all. I wonder when will they
digitize the film format so it will be interesting to see in theaters not just a big screen
with volume maxed out.

You are about 5 years too late.

Visit movie-site imdb.com and search the technical section for "Viper" or "Genesis," two widely used digital-cinema cameras, and it'll list dozens of video-taped movies--and one, "Zodiac" (2007) (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/), only recorded on hard drives, (with tape just for archiving.) -- John

Well then if they already recorded them in digital, then why don't they present it in a digital
HD projector in theaters?

Well then if they already recorded them in digital, then why don't they present it in a digital
HD projector in theaters?

It is the theater's choice to put the money up for the digital projectors. Many don't want to put up the money, those projectors are ridiculously expensive.

Well then if they already recorded them in digital, then why don't they present it in a digital
HD projector in theaters?

They do...you are about 5 years too late.

They do...you are about 5 years too late.
Name one movie theater that support HD movies.

Name one movie theater that support HD movies.Name one? You must be kidding.

Here is one list:

http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/dlp_cinema_theater_search.asp

Name one? You must be kidding.

Here is one list:

http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/dlp_cinema_theater_search.asp

I give up. Stupid post, please delete.

There are some IMAX theaters as well that have digital projectors although they are much farther and fewer between.

Digital Cinema is actually beyond HDTV. The current DCI spec is 2048x1080/24P. Yes 2048 is not much more than 1920 but the big difference is in color space,. Digital Cinema is 444 full bandwidth unlike current broadcast HDTV that is 422 and further compressed to 420 for ATSC broadcast. The new XYZ color space for digital cinema is often quoted "as able to produce colors only aliens can see" It's range is beyond human color perception. DCI compliant servers also utilize JPEG2000 compression, not MPEG2 and can run up to 270mbs.

Even though most theaters still run film prints, more and more features are made through a "digital intermediate" process. This means the camera negative is scanned into computers and all color correction and editing is done electronically, not chemically or optically. The completed files are laser scanned out to new negative stock from wich prints are struck. This by the way is done at a minimum resolution of 2048x1556, (2K) and more and more 4096x3112, (4K). This process while not 100% start to end digital does greatly improve the projected film image. And of course the files for DC are made directly from the digitally corretced files as well and the home video versions.

Old fashioned 35mm film also still has many image quality and efficiency attributes over a video camera so most features done thorough the DI process still have a quality edge over 24p video cameras. That gap is closing with technology advances however and video cameras do have some attributes over film. DP's are now using each technology where is makes the best sense so more and more features are shot with a mix of film and 24P video.

Even though most theaters still run film prints, more and more features are made through a "digital intermediate" process. This means the camera negative is scanned into computers and all color correction and editing is done electronically, not chemically or optically. The completed files are laser scanned out to new negative stock from wich prints are struck. This by the way is done at a minimum resolution of 2048x1556, (2K) and more and more 4096x3112, (4K). This process while not 100% start to end digital does greatly improve the projected film image. And of course the files for DC are made directly from the digitally corretced files as well and the home video versions.

Any lists yet for 1080 DVDs made from 4k digital intermediates (downconverted)? A few queries (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9775663&&#post9775663) about titles last week at the software experts forum hasn't turned up anything. (Atop that linked page I cited an '03 article outlining some advantages of 4k downconversions.) -- John

Hmmm... I'm going to have to ask the folks at the Contra Costa Cinemas if they actually may have DLP in some of the auditoriums. They are also owned by Cinewest and the theater was recently remodeled. Most if not all the other Cinewest theaters in the area are DLP.

Even though most theaters still run film prints, more and more features are made through a "digital intermediate" process. This means the camera negative is scanned into computers and all color correction and editing is done electronically, not chemically or optically.
And is ruined by the guy running the projector! I saw Dreamgirls on Saturday and its DI was wasted on my eyes because the whole thing was far more blurry than a DVD. They must think that if it looks in focus in the projection room 200 feet from the screen, it must be in focus for the guy in the sixth row.

I saw Dreamgirls on Saturday and its DI was wasted on my eyes because the whole thing was far more blurry than a DVD.
The blurriness is caused by the theater.

Many theaters decide to move the projector light source away from the film or something like that. Whatever they do, it reduces the chances that the heat coming from the lightbulb will set fire to the film, causing a fire elsewhere, but as a tradeoff, the optimal focus on the film is lost, resulting in the blurriness. There's a financial benefit for the theaters in doing this, since it allows them to employ fewer projector operators, which simply move from theater to theater to check up on things.

So it's not the DI that hurts PQ like you described. It's actually another reason to upgrade to digital projectors. But that costs money...

I give up. Stupid post, please delete.

Why is that a stupid post? According to DLP.com, near you, the following theater has a DLP projector and hence HD in cinema:

Kerasotes ShowPlace 16 - Rockford (5.99 miles)
8301 East State Street
Rockford, Illinois 61108

Check it out and if they are not showing movies in DLP (whose projectors are HD), get on their case.

We need the help of PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM TO GET HD IN OUR THEATERS. It doesn't help when avsforum regulars keep on saying their HT is better than commercial theaters, even though many of these people haven't seen movies in COMMERICAL DLP.

If you give commercial DLP a chance, you might like it. It is worth seeking out. If we can spread the word we can put more pressure on movie theater owners to put more in their theaters.

I live in the SF Bay Area, and I shouldn't have to drive 80 miles to the middle of nowhere Riverbank, CA to find a theater that has four DLP projectors (the closer ones have just one, and I still have to drive 20 miles to find a theater with one)

Why is that a stupid post? According to DLP.com, near you, the following theater has a DLP projector and hence HD in cinema:

Kerasotes ShowPlace 16 - Rockford (5.99 miles)
8301 East State Street
Rockford, Illinois 61108

Check it out and if they are not showing movies in DLP (whose projectors are HD), get on their case.

We need the help of PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM TO GET HD IN OUR THEATERS. It doesn't help when avsforum regulars keep on saying their HT is better than commercial theaters, even though many of these people haven't seen movies in COMMERICAL DLP.

If you give commercial DLP a chance, you might like it. It is worth seeking out. If we can spread the word we can put more pressure on movie theater owners to put more in their theaters.

I live in the SF Bay Area, and I shouldn't have to drive 80 miles to the middle of nowhere Riverbank, CA to find a theater that has four DLP projectors (the closer ones have just one, and I still have to drive 20 miles to find a theater with one)

I've been to that theater but I don't know which one has the DLP projector. Last
time I went there was when I was watching Rocky. The picture was just pure ugly.
The film has a retarded aspect ratio. It is too tall than it is wide. It's out of focus
and the sound isn't good. My Pro-Logic IIx can pull a better sound from a 2
channel source. This theater is one of the small theaters. There is the main big
one but I haven't been in there yet. I just got to the small theaters.

Digital Cinema is actually beyond HDTV. The current DCI spec is 2048x1080/24P. Yes 2048 is not much more than 1920 but the big difference is in color space,. Digital Cinema is 444 full bandwidth unlike current broadcast HDTV that is 422 and further compressed to 420 for ATSC broadcast. The new XYZ color space for digital cinema is often quoted "as able to produce colors only aliens can see" It's range is beyond human color perception. DCI compliant servers also utilize JPEG2000 compression, not MPEG2 and can run up to 270mbs.


I saw Star Wars - Sith at the Archlight Cinema in Hollywood which was one of around 10 or so 2k theaters around the country at the time - compared with around 75 of the lower res digital theaters.

The real negative to it as I saw it was the clarity as most of the CGI looking out windows or establishing shots seemed to have a haze around them compared to the stunning clarity of the foreground characters - making it look fake, imo.

In this respect I preferred the the lower res as everything integrated better so it did not stand out as being fake.

In time, no doubt the cgi will be able to match what is shown live and this will not be a factor.

Last time I went there was when I was watching Rocky. The picture was just pure ugly. The film has a retarded aspect ratio. It is too tall than it is wide. It's out of focus and the sound isn't good. My Pro-Logic IIx can pull a better sound from a 2 channel source. This theater is one of the small theaters. There is the main big one but I haven't been in there yet. I just got to the small theaters.

I'll pretty much assure you that right now they are not going to put the digital cinema in the smaller theater compared to the main theater in a complex.

So it's not the DI that hurts PQ like you described. It's actually another reason to upgrade to digital projectors. But that costs money...
Which is what I was hinting at. Give the theaters fewer things to screw up. It's ridiculous to come home, turn on Saturday Night Live and see a sharper picture than the movie I just went to.

The bulb in their projector cost more than my HDTV! :eek:

question,

Harkings Theatre opened the first `all digital' theatre here in OKC 3 years ago...does this only apply to audio since it's still obviously reel to reel film with all the imperfections showing up on the films.??

I give up. Stupid post, please delete.
Maybe he meant delete his post :)

Name one movie theater that support HD movies.

I can do better and name a movie theater that's all digital. The Galaxy Cannery Theatres in North Las Vegas has DLP projectors on all 16 of their screens.

Bostonb is lucky to have a handful of DLP screens one at each of four theatres only one being T accessable (I do not have a car) :(

I saw Star Wars - Sith at the Archlight Cinema in Hollywood which was one of around 10 or so 2k theaters around the country at the time - compared with around 75 of the lower res digital theaters.

The real negative to it as I saw it was the clarity as most of the CGI looking out windows or establishing shots seemed to have a haze around them compared to the stunning clarity of the foreground characters - making it look fake, imo.With both Episode II and III, the biggest problem with digital projection was the way it totally crushes blacks.

For example, in many dark scenes, when watching a film presentation of Episode III you could clearly make out details in hair and on the lava planet that were completely crushed to black when watching a digital presentation.

So yes, the digital presentation was clearer in many ways as images were presented without being converted to film, but the current digital projectors just aren't capable of reproducing the full range of images projected film can.

There are also other aesthetic preferences involved, which is why the producers of 24 still shoot on Kodak Motion Picture Film rather than with digital cameras.

If there is a problem with the film go to the lobby and ask them to fix it. In fact the nearby theater puts up a slide before the film starts stating to do just that. If you don't get results then complain to the company owning the theater. In some cases I've known people to get free passes for doing that.

I also remember a "mom and pop" took over a local theater and right after they did seeing a film where the framing on the projector was way off (like halfway). In that case we could all hear the girl from the lobby and got quite a chuckle hearing her say "I don't know how to do this!" It did get fixed, my relatives who were with me almost pushed me to go help since I know the technology but someone else came to the rescue. Anyway everyone got a laugh.

In another a corporate chain theater was showing a film and didn't have the mask on so we got to see the lighting and all kinds of things we weren't supposed to. In that case I went to the lobby and complained but it never got fixed. The kid in the lobby probably thought "another kooky customer who thinks the movie isn't framed right."

I'll pretty much assure you that right now they are not going to put the digital cinema in the smaller theater compared to the main theater in a complex.


You've never seen a DLP movie at the AMC theaters in Daly city, CA. I saw the last Harry Potter movie in a midnight showing there hoping the DLP would be in a main theater. Instead it was in one of the smallest in complex of 20.

The lack of interest in this thread shows the situation here. We already have cinemas in HD, and could have a lot more, but HD enthusiasts (Avsforum regulars) would rather stay at home THAN EVEN GIVE THIS A CHANCE (I have seen too many people here say that analog movie theaters suck, and when you mention DLP [which has pointed out earlier, is HD for this commercial purpose] they disappear).

It's sad, really. Here we have an opportunity to blow people away with huge screens full of HD goodness, but we can't even get most HD freaks to support the cause.

If there is a problem with the film go to the lobby and ask them to fix it.
I asked the usher guy walking around the theater carrying a flashlight if he thought that picture was in focus. He said it looked fine to him.

The only employees in the lobby were two people at the concessions. Since this was the last show, even the box office and the ticket takers were gone. I probably would have missed ten or fifteen minutes of the movie trying to find someone.

The lack of interest in this thread shows the situation here. We already have cinemas in HD, and could have a lot more, but HD enthusiasts (Avsforum regulars) would rather stay at home THAN EVEN GIVE THIS A CHANCE (I have seen too many people here say that analog movie theaters suck, and when you mention DLP [which has pointed out earlier, is HD for this commercial purpose] they disappear).

It's sad, really. Here we have an opportunity to blow people away with huge screens full of HD goodness, but we can't even get most HD freaks to support the cause.
I think it's a matter of "too little - too late". Commercial theaters have essentially waited for home theaters to errode their business model too badly to really recover.

With ever-increasing image and sound quality, cheap refreshments, no need for a babysitter and a lack of rude people with cell phones, people have gotten used to the idea of just staying home. Now, with HD disc formats making their way into people's homes, there's less reason to go out.

For too long, the movie theater experience has been less than stellar and the home theater experience had plenty of time to take hold.

Now the theaters are scrambling to get people back in any way they can. Well, I'm not buying in. You lost me years ago. I tried the digital cinema recently, and despite a better picture, I found rude people and simple things like the lights being cranked on as soon as the end credits hit as annoying as before. Trying to watch a post-credits bonus scene while theater staff is clunking brooms around was considerably less than pleasurable.

Sorry, but digital isn't enough to help the commercial theater experience for me.

Now, with HD disc formats making their way into people's homes, there's less reason to go out.

HD disc formats are great, but how does that help for highly anticipated movies? I am not waiting years for a blu-ray/hd-dvd disc for a movie I badly want to see when I can see a midnight showing in glorious commercial DLP.

I can understand many of you are willing to wait when it comes to analog theater vs. your HT, but when you have HD cinema as an option, how can you pass it up? It's not like your HD HT setup has a screen THAT big (even if the PQ comes somewhat close).

My posts on this are aimed at those who are mostly upset about PQ. Of course I can understand the comments re: pricing, other patrons, etc.

Sorry, but digital isn't enough to help the commercial theater experience for me.

So what will it take? Do you realize your lack of support for HD cinema in movie theaters doesn't help the commercial theater experience get any better?

Would you support a price increase for DLP show tickets? That would weed out the idiots, regardless of age. Only the people that care for cinema in HD would pay the additional fee. Of course this might not work as a business model, but I don't see how charging the same price for everything pays for DLP projectors.

I know in Dublin, CA Regal Cinema's charges more for an IMAX showing, but not DLP. To me that makes no sense whatsoever, considering the DLP projectors are expensive too.

I too get sick and tired of idiots at DLP showings, even if it be just people who don't realize they are in a special showing and thus don't appreciate what they are seeing.

Since it seems to be a common meme here that HD in the cinema is a desirable thing, and it's universally acknowledged that converting to a digital projector is very expensive, I'm going to try a different tack. I do not want my local cinemas switching to digital projectors. If it's a given that X dollars must be spent on the conversion, then I would much rather see the money spent on trained projectionists, education of theater owners to issues like dimming the projector bulb in the silly theory that it will then last longer, and maybe some other things that will actually enhance my trip to the movies, which DLP will not do.

Just my 2 cents.

I remember I saw Episode II in digital and I didn't even realize it until later. I first thought something was odd when the green "This preview has been approved for all audiences" frame came up during the trailers. It just didn't look right. Then it suddenly hit me that there was no film grain or noise in the frame at all. It was actually a little jarring, I had been so used to the pops and scratches and dust in the film which are extremely visible in those single-color frames.

Memphis' local chain, Malco, actually has 3, and has had those 3 since since Episode II. However, it seems to be pretty rare when they actually show something in all-digital. They only seem to break the DLP out for special occasions. Is it just that not many movies are being distributed digitally to theaters yet? Granted, I don't go to a whole lot of movies, but I think in the past 5 years I've seen 3, maybe 4 movies on the digital projector.

If there is a problem with the film go to the lobby and ask them to fix it. In fact the nearby theater puts up a slide before the film starts stating to do just that. If you don't get results then complain to the company owning the theater. In some cases I've known people to get free passes for doing that.

Ahh, yes.

I remember going to see Terminator T2 at the UA Theater in NYC on the East Side. Why did I go there? It was one of 2 Theaters showing it 70mm in NYC and the only one with CDS Cinema Digital Sound.

So I go to the sweet spot and sit down. Film starts and as the hear the sound of crushing bones and skulls, it obvious the sound is moving 180 degrees the WRONG WAY as the motion on the screen.

So up I go to the front. They go to their ticket machine - yes, their cash register/ticket machine and hit a few buttons to try and reverse the left and right speakers. No go. They say they will get it fix on Tuesday.

So I come back the next week. Ask if its fixed. Yes, they tell me. So in I go again - film starts - same deal.

And we wondered why CDS died, lol.

As this was one of the 2 Theaters showing T2 in 70mm in NYC - and it probably was never corrected - I believe 4 theaters showed it in LA in 70mm - so what exactly should we do and who should we complain to?

When will the film studios change from old fashion reel tape to a digital HD camera?
I've been looking from different places to see if there is any theaters out there that
support high definition movies. But I got no luck at all. I wonder when will they
digitize the film format so it will be interesting to see in theaters not just a big screen
with volume maxed out.

You do realize of course that film is still by far our highest resolution technology for recording a sequence of still images closely together in time?

You do realize of course that film is still by far our highest resolution technology for recording a sequence of still images closely together in time?
The problem (John Mason will give you a dozen links :) ) is that by the time film gets projected to people like us, it's four or five generations away from the original high resolution film that was in the camera. If I remember right, you can expect to see resolution comparable to 720p in the theater.

Saturday night, I personally saw far less resolution than a DVD, not to mention a lot of annoying 48hz flicker that I seem to be sensitive to.

So what will it take? Do you realize your lack of support for HD cinema in movie theaters doesn't help the commercial theater experience get any better?
I call BS on that. Supporting a product - and a theater presentation is a product - that is inferior to another product (i.e. - my home presentation) is not going to improve the product. It's not my responsibility to help a theater get their act together. If they can't do a better job, they don't need to exist.

Trying to watch a post-credits bonus scene while theater staff is clunking brooms around was considerably less than pleasurable.Most of the time... but once (Dick Tracy, 1990) when I was the last person in the theater during the end credits, the usher was sweeping up, saw me, and she did a little dance just for me. That was fun.

I call BS on that. Supporting a product - and a theater presentation is a product - that is inferior to another product (i.e. - my home presentation) is not going to improve the product. It's not my responsibility to help a theater get their act together. If they can't do a better job, they don't need to exist.

Again I challenge the notion that the theater presentation is an inferior product to your HT, as I did in my last post (The part you ignored).

Please call me when you have a midnight showing of a movie coming out in DLP theaters that day. I'd love to see it in your superior HT over the DLP theater that midnight. This alone is a huge blow to your superiority argument. Waiting 6 months to avoid an analog showing is one thing, but the midnight of its release you can see it in HD on a screen bigger than any HT in existence (unless you count Steven Spielberg's home theater)?


You know, I find it funny (and extremely hypocritical) that there are many threads in the HD programming forum about how Joe Schmo's don't undertand HD and it frustrates us to no end, because it does the HD movement a disservice. And yet, this is one of the few threads here that discusses HD cinema in the same light, i.e., that we have an ignorance towards HD cinema which needs to be rectified (or release blu-ray/hd-dvd's the same day at the theatrical release, which is of course absurd and won't happen).

It has been my experience that good movies are just as good whether you are watching at midnight on the day of the release or 6 months later on your couch. Saying that cinema HD is superior just because one is able to see a movie the minute is released in HD is of no relevance. Superiority of the viewing options is in the eye of the beholder, some may like to see a movie in HD at the cinema other don't mind waiting to see it in HD. To claim that since it is HD we should support personally is totally baseless. There are many things in HD that I have no interest in, if other do that is great. For the things in HD that I have no interest in, I hope for the people that do have an interest in that stuff that their are enough of them to create a sizable market, but don't look to me to support your product choices just for more HD options for you.

The concept of HD cinema is to make it cheaper to distribute a film. Prints are expensive to strike but they are supposed to be able to download the films via satellite link to a server. They were also supposed to be able to move showing around on the fly if there was more interest in a certain film. I know that Landmark, who does a lot of independent and foreign films, outfitted some of their theaters so it would be easier for the low budget distributors of such films to get them in more theaters without having to make more expensive prints. I get tired of seeing "Exclusive San Francisco Engagement" when it really should read "We only got one print for now folks so we're showing it in San Francisco."

I've been going to theaters recently because of the usual glut of good films this time of year competing for awards. The rest of the year we'll get drek.

It has been my experience that good movies are just as good whether you are watching at midnight on the day of the release or 6 months later on your couch. Saying that cinema HD is superior just because one is able to see a movie the minute is released in HD is of no relevance. Superiority of the viewing options is in the eye of the beholder, some may like to see a movie in HD at the cinema other don't mind waiting to see it in HD. To claim that since it is HD we should support personally is totally baseless. There are many things in HD that I have no interest in, if other do that is great. For the things in HD that I have no interest in, I hope for the people that do have an interest in that stuff that their are enough of them to create a sizable market, but don't look to me to support your product choices just for more HD options for you.
Thanks. You saved me typing up a response by posting exactly what I would have said.

The fact is, seeing a movie at the earliest possible moment holds no real appeal to me. They'll all be out within 3-6 months after the theatrical run. I can see it more cheaply in my home theater and enjoy the experience more. The audio quality of my theater is as good or better than some of the so-called "professional" theaters and HD media on my screen looks fantastic compared to the dark, contrast-starved images on the cinema screens.

Why should I pay more just to see content earlier? That's the argument for blowing money by going out to the movies? That's like saying I should become a software beta-tester just to get software earlier. In either case, I get a poor user experience that I can avoid by waiting an exibiting something we adults call "patience".

They'll all be out within 3-6 months after the theatrical run.

I noticed you own the SD-DVD of Cars. So how did you enjoy that 480p DVD?


With Cars Blu-Ray *Scheduled* to come out this summer, that makes it one full year between theatrical release and high definition DVD release.


Of course last summer you could have seen Cars in glorious HD via a commercial DLP projector depending on where you live, the day it came out.

1.) How long do wait times between theatrical release and high def DVD release have to get before you consider actively seeing movies in commercial DLP?

2.) I asked you this before to no avail, so I'll ask again:


What would it take for you personally to be interested in seeing movies at the movie theater in HD (commercial dlp)?

I noticed you own the SD-DVD of Cars. So how did you enjoy that 480p DVD?


With Cars Blu-Ray *Scheduled* to come out this summer, that makes it one full year between theatrical release and high definition DVD release.


Of course last summer you could have seen Cars in glorious HD via a commercial DLP projector depending on where you live, the day it came out.

1.) How long do wait times between theatrical release and high def DVD release have to get before you consider actively seeing movies in commercial DLP?

2.) I asked you this before to no avail, so I'll ask again:


What would it take for you personally to be interested in seeing movies at the movie theater in HD (commercial dlp)?

Actually, Cars is a bad example, since I was able to get a private screening a few days before the public through a friend at Disney. However, the cars DVD looks fantastic despite being SD. It's irrelevant, though, since all current theatrical movies will be out on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray the same time as the DVD from this point on. There won't be an extra wait. In fact, the time between theatrical presentation and home video releases is becoming shorter all the time. I wouldn't be surprised to see a matter of a few weeks difference in the next few years. The studios seem to have grasped the idea of "striking while the iron is hot".

Now, for your question:

1) I'm interested if the theater can project it properly, something they can't seem to do around here on a regular basis - even with digital presentations.

2) They start cracking down on people that disrupt the presentation by using cell phones or being unruly. I have no problem with people having fun - just don't start having a heated discussion during the movie.

3) Theaters start enforcing age limits. Too often, I see unnaccompanied 8-10 year olds at a PG-13 movie (probably the parents are in another theater). I've even encountered young children in rated R films. They don't belong there. I also wouldn't mind late showings that are adults only.

4) Charge a realistic price. For the cost of two people going to the theater (not counting gas to get there or snacks if we choose to get them) I can own my own copy or pay for a month's worth of Netflix rentals.

5) Show respect for those that enjoy watching the end credits. I avoid restaurants that hustle you out the door just as I avoid the theater where I feel like I'm holding things up when I want to watch the entire movie.

Since number 1 is about the only thing a DLP cinema can potentially fix (since they aren't going to go out of their way to fix anything at all), I don't see myself going back anytime soon.

What you fail to realize is that if Commercial Theaters continue to loose revenue, the only thing to show in your home theater will be low budget direct to DVD movies.

Bottom line is that until there are quantum leaps in projection quality, I absolutely refuse to watch a digitally projected film; you still can't beat the look of a good print projected well (read: not AMC, more like Century theatres. Alas, with their purchase by Cinemark, high quality presentation may have gone out the window.)

If there is a problem with the film go to the lobby and ask them to fix it. In fact the nearby theater puts up a slide before the film starts stating to do just that. If you don't get results then complain to the company owning the theater. In some cases I've known people to get free passes for doing that.
Good luck with that. Most people, even people who work at the theater, aren't as picky as we are. When my wife and I saw Happy Feet, there was a noticeable distortion in the sound that really bothered me. To me it sounded very harsh during loud scenes, almost like digital clipping. I went to the lobby and told the customer service person about it, and she said they would send someone to take care of it. Needless to say, it wasn't fixed and I sat through the whole movie thinking how much better our setup at home sounds.

What you fail to realize is that if Commercial Theaters continue to loose revenue, the only thing to show in your home theater will be low budget direct to DVD movies.
Without the cost of distributing movies to the theaters, the studios could distribute exclusively to the home video and foreign theater markets and make just as much as they do now. Most of the profits are made from home video sales, anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see PPV home delivery of "theatrical" releases as an alternative to the commercial theater.

The fact is, the theater business model is as out of date as the local TV station model. If they want to survive, they need to come up with a way to draw people in. Crying poor because I can have a better experience at home isn't going to change anything.

Most of my favorite movies didn't break even at the box office. Even The Wizard of Oz didn't break even until it was broadcast on network televsion. Classics like Citizen Kane didn't even earn a tiny fraction of what they cost to make. As long as millions of other people keep on paying ten bucks to see out of focus mediocre movies in the theater, I won't feel guilty about watching them at home.

Without the cost of distributing movies to the theaters, the studios could distribute exclusively to the home video and foreign theater markets and make just as much as they do now. Most of the profits are made from home video sales, anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see PPV home delivery of "theatrical" releases as an alternative to the commercial theater.


lol....right.

The theaters get literally nothing on ticket sales. They make their money on Popcorn and Soft Drinks. That ticket money goes to the movie companies.

The movie companies need the money from the ticket sales to 1) pay for the marketing buzz about the movie and 2) pay back the real expense of making the movie.

Then the DVD and PPV cycle helps it get closer to making a profit - or makes the profit.

Of course then you have the Premium Content Providers (like HBO/SHO/STARZ) and then Broadcast TV.

If you take out the first stage going directly to the second, no, they cannot make a profit in most cases.

Thus you will see the equivilant of made for TV Movies if you remove that part of the equation.

Thus you will see the equivilant of made for TV Movies if you remove that part of the equation.
Cool! I'd love to see more outstanding TV miniseries like Band of Brothers, Over There, and From Earth to the Moon. These were all written as well as any movie I've seen recently and well acted despite not costing a $100 million to make and sell. Actually From the Earth to the Moon cost $68 million so television is sometimes able to scrape together more money than many feature films.

If all the money the studios spend shoving crummy movies down our throats were spent on TV Movies, we'd see even better stuff on the little screen.

2.) I asked you this before to no avail, so I'll ask again:


What would it take for you personally to be interested in seeing movies at the movie theater in HD (commercial dlp)?


No screaming kids, people kicking the back of your seat, sticky floors, and non-stop talking during the movie - or - a private screening for just me, my family, and friends. Even then, we'd have to go back in time to before I spent a luxury car's worth of cash on my home theater in order to provide a decent movie experience for my family.

I'm certainly not going to write off my own home theater, and sacrifice my enjoyment of a movie just to subsidize the local theater. If I'm going to donate money to charity, I can certainly find a more worthy cause.

I'd actually be more likely to go to a theater for an event like an NFL game broadcast - and pay for that "free" programming - because that is an event where the crowd is actually a positive.

Now the theaters are scrambling to get people back in any way they can. Well, I'm not buying in. You lost me years ago. I tried the digital cinema recently, and despite a better picture, I found rude people and simple things like the lights being cranked on as soon as the end credits hit as annoying as before. Trying to watch a post-credits bonus scene while theater staff is clunking brooms around was considerably less than pleasurable.

Sorry, but digital isn't enough to help the commercial theater experience for me.

It would have to be a spectacular looking movie event to get me to a theater these days. 300 might fit the bill, but until cinemas start having permanent staff in every theater to taze the talkers, seat hitters, parents with crying babies in R rated movies and everyone who can't set the vibrate function on their cell phone I'll stay home.

I would urge anyone interested in this discussion to watch the extras on the "Grudge 2" DVD. There is an extra on the difference between Asian and Hollywood productions and the point is made that not so much money is at stake so the storyline is much more important. This is probably why I find many Asian horror flicks superior to Hollywood. I recently ventured out to see "The Messengers", a Pang Brothers film (which was shot in Canada) and noted that the few teens in the audience were snickering at the film as they probably wanted to see more gratuitous gore and shock value. These uncultured snots drive the market unfortunately in this country.

lol....right.

The theaters get literally nothing on ticket sales. They make their money on Popcorn and Soft Drinks. That ticket money goes to the movie companies.

Sell it directly to my home day and date for the price of the ticket minus the cut for the theater. Same income coming in. Do it as a VOD so I can pause it if necessary, but not record it.

Honestly, I can't tell you the number of times I've sat in a nearly empty theater for some movies. While it was nice to be able to enjoy the movie without feeling like a sardine, I can't imagine showings like that are adding anything significant to the bottom line.

I think what bothers me so much is that HD cinema (commercial DLP) is a chance to get those who can and cannot buy HDTV's now hooked on the product.

If every screen in every theater used commercial DLP (and all movies were released DLP), than the 13 year old who causes us much scorn would at least be force-fed HD.

This might help with getting more HDTV's in households, or at least reduce the ignorance towards HDTV (And HD in general) that bugs all of us.

I hear all of the complaints and I wish all of them were rectified too, but I still want more HD in movie theaters just to get the masses (who still spend money at those cineplexes as evidenced by pre-DVD domestic box office numbers) more exposed to HD.

In the meantime, when "300" comes out next month, I am going to enjoy a midnight DLP showing and invite all the avsforum regulars to join me by going to their nearest local DLP theater. It should be a fun experience.

Cool! I'd love to see more outstanding TV miniseries like Band of Brothers, Over There, and From Earth to the Moon. These were all written as well as any movie I've seen recently and well acted despite not costing a $100 million to make and sell. Actually From the Earth to the Moon cost $68 million so television is sometimes able to scrape together more money than many feature films.

If all the money the studios spend shoving crummy movies down our throats were spent on TV Movies, we'd see even better stuff on the little screen.

You can't spend it on TV Movies as they can't foot the bill. And from yours and others definitions in this thread, it will only get worse.

So sorry, the Mini-Series you quote weren't subjected to the low budgets that made for TV Movies are made for.

You will see all the USA Network and Lifetime Movie made for TV movies that you care to see.

Sell it directly to my home day and date for the price of the ticket minus the cut for the theater. Same income coming in.

Nope, you are paying per view - not per person - and again - the theater really doesnt get the cut any longer.

Again, there is a reason you paying $5 for a Drink and $5 for Popcorn - and it isn't greed from the Theater Owners.

Sometime you wonder about the people who post here with wild fantasies and won't take 3 minutes to find out the truth which is readily available.

Take public filing from AMC Movie Theaters for 2006:

http://www.shareholder.com/Common/Edgar/722077/1047469-07-1370/07-00.pdf

$392,762,000 EBITA

/5635 Screens:

$69,700 per screen


/411 Theaters

$955,625 per Theater


That's popcorn and drink sales - not $7+ movie tickets.

You will see all the USA Network and Lifetime Movie made for TV movies that you care to see.
Heaven forbid, I just may have to find something better to do than watch TV all because I chose not to go to the theater to pay 10 bucks to watch an out of focus movie. I hope society doesn't collapse and send us back into the Dark Ages!

And Steven Spielberg will be out of a job!

Steven doesn't know how to make a $5M Movie.

Steven doesn't know how to make a $5M Movie.
He also doesn't know how to make one without blown out whites, Tom Cruise or a layer of vasoline on the lense anymore - but that's for a different thread.

Does it take $100 million to make a good movie these days, or does it take $100 million to sell a mediocre movie? Even Ray was considered a "medium budget" movie at $40 million. Even if digital projection ends up saving the studios money, I don't see how that's going to make a significant dent in these numbers.

I've asked the HD HT vs theatrical presentation question over the years and the the responses were just about evenly split. It's obvious that the theaters have a greater challenge for attendance as the technology for home viewing improves.

Controlling the age of the audience is a double edge sword. If younger viewers are discouraged from attending features, they will increasingly become accustomed to a watching home presentation and may be less likely to attend theatrical presentations in the future. I have the feeling that's going to happen anyway as large screens in the home become common with high quality source material.

The other side of the situation is that improving low priced HD and 2K 24P electronic cameras offer indies a more affordable workflow. How many super high budget Hollywood features have little in the way of story telling? The demise of theaters may not equate to lower quality features.

The bottom line is that unless theaters can give us an advantage over our comfortable and controlled home environment, they are doomed to extinction. This will require investment into technology and personal. This isn't the first time the motion picture industry has faced the challenge of losing theatrical attendance, but it could be their last.

The other side of the situation is that improving low priced HD and 2K 24P electronic cameras offer indies a more affordable workflow.

I produce independent feature films. While what you write is true to a certain extent, we have shot in 35MM and continue to plan to do so for at least the near future. HD is cheaper in some ways, can be more expensive in others (much harder to light which can cause delays for one). Also, international distributors still tend to give much more weight to films shot on 35MM.

While I anticipate that HD will become more of a factor, esp when foreign sales buyers and sellers are more enthusiastic about it, I think HD is more relevant as an artistic choice (like with what Michael Mann and George Lucas have done) at the moment than in terms of financial choices for indie filmmakers that are making films with recognizable name talent that are intended for distribution.

Of course, there's a whole separate world of people making indie films who are looking to break in, primarily via Sundance, and HD will make it easier for the guy in Indiana who has a dream to pick up a camera and make their movie and have it look really good.

My question to the DLP projection theaters is what resolution is it showing? I remember
a video press conference from Sony that the movies are 2K by 1K (2048x1080)and 4K by 2K
(4096x2160) progressive running at 24 frames per second. Sony also stated they are in
production of a SXRD front projection supporting 4096x2160p24. I don't know if it's either
for theaters only like SDDS or both consumers and commercial use.

P.S. Also, when are they going to support Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA technology
in their cinema for full 7.1 support. Because I will highly doubt that home theaters
will be better than theaters in terms of technology. For that thought, will Sony
introduce a new lossless audio to their SDDS line?

I produce independent feature films. While what you write is true to a certain extent, we have shot in 35MM and continue to plan to do so for at least the near future. HD is cheaper in some ways, can be more expensive in others (much harder to light which can cause delays for one). Also, international distributors still tend to give much more weight to films shot on 35MM.



Interesting comment. This is most correct. One of the issues I have heard from producers (the people approving the bills, not the creative people spending the money like druken sailors) is that 24p video offers WYSIWYG. That sounds like a good thing but it also makes striving for impossible prefection much more tempting. Instead of shooting the film blindly based on years of expereince by a DP, the directors tend to fidgit with the images and lighting much longer tying up a lot of expensive people and equipment. With film, you are forced to view dailies next day and it's gotta be a significant issue to warrant a re-shoot.

My question to the DLP projection theaters is what resolution is it showing? I remember
a video press conference from Sony that the movies are 2K by 1K (2048x1080)and 4K by 2K
(4096x2160) progressive running at 24 frames per second. Sony also stated they are in
production of a SXRD front projection supporting 4096x2160p24. I don't know if it's either
for theaters only like SDDS or both consumers and commercial use.



Older Digital Cinemas from turn of this century are 1024x1024.

The current technology is 2048x1080p

Sony does in fact have a 4069x2160p projector but it has some issues preventing it from industry adoption. Low light levels and convergence stability problems. Furthermore the encoding and playout equipment for 4K is still rare and very expensive.

Older Digital Cinemas from turn of this century are 1024x1024.

The current technology is 2048x1080p

Sony does in fact have a 4069x2160p projector but it has some issues preventing it from industry adoption. Low light levels and convergence stability problems. Furthermore the encoding and playout equipment for 4K is still rare and very expensive.

Isn't convergence only from CRT based projection using Red, Blue, and Green tubes?

Isn't convergence only from CRT based projection using Red, Blue, and Green tubes?
I believe those higher resolution projectors use multiple sets of chips which can present convergence issues if they aren't aligned correctly.

Isn't convergence only from CRT based projection using Red, Blue, and Green tubes?

Three chip projectors are more the norm than exception. Only the consumer DLP projectors use a single chip. ALL LCD, LCOS, and SXRD products are three chip. So are high end DLP projectors. Convergence has nothing to do with tubes. All broadcast CCD cameras are three chip as well. Anytime you need to registure two or more sensors or light valves into a single plane there will always be some mis-alignment.

If there is a problem with the film go to the lobby and ask them to fix it. In fact the nearby theater puts up a slide before the film starts stating to do just that. If you don't get results then complain to the company owning the theater. In some cases I've known people to get free passes for doing that.The biggest problem with this, aside from the fact it probably won't get fixed, is you've just missed 10-15 minutes of the movie you've probably already invested a minimum of two hours in prep time (driving to the theater, buying tickets, waiting in line for the next showing, etc.) to see.

So I can either miss a big chunk of the movie or throw away the two hours I've invested so far only to hope it's fixed the next time (after investing another two hours).

Neither would want to make me come back to that theatre again.

Three chip projectors are more the norm than exception. Only the consumer DLP projectors use a single chip. ALL LCD, LCOS, and SXRD products are three chip. So are high end DLP projectors. Convergence has nothing to do with tubes. All broadcast CCD cameras are three chip as well. Anytime you need to registure two or more sensors or light valves into a single plane there will always be some mis-alignment.

Well I can't wait until they put a real serious movement on Digital Theaters. They
should have atleast 2K by 1K projector if not 4K by 2K and the studios should
start making Dolby Plus/TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and whatever Sony got up their
sleeves to release a lossless audio. Since all of this formats can accept more than
7.1 (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD standard) they should go beyond that instead playing mono
on different speakers.

Well I can't wait until they put a real serious movement on Digital Theaters. They
should have atleast 2K by 1K projector if not 4K by 2K and the studios should
start making Dolby Plus/TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and whatever Sony got up their
sleeves to release a lossless audio. Since all of this formats can accept more than
7.1 (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD standard) they should go beyond that instead playing mono
on different speakers.
Tell that to the theaters who will have to buy into all that and see what they say.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but it's a hard enough sell to get theaters to upgrade to digital projection, much less a really good system. There are many theaters still out there that barely have stereo for some screens, much less digital surround sound. Those guys will probaly only upgrade to digital projection when a film projector dies on them.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that theaters are moving toward digital projection. However, if they think that they can just make that switch and not fix all the other problems - then expect jaded folks like me to come back - they are sadly mistaken. The projection mechanism is only one of many problems with the theater system.

Any lists yet for 1080 DVDs made from 4k digital intermediates (downconverted)?
For kicks, searched imdb.com, in the technical section (menus on the left) for the recent movie "Babel." Selecting a PCS:Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) (http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:digital%20Intermediate%09(2K)%20(master% 20format)) submenu brought up a list of 65 recent films using 2k DIs (suitable for HD disc production). [Note: the grin smiley results from the link's wording]. A similar search using Spiderman II disclosed a list (http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS:Digital%20Intermediate%09(4K)%20(master% 20format)) of 16 films with 4k processing. Both lists may just be for those specific DI processes. -- John

EDIT: BTW, read in this older ('02) article (http://indieproducing.com/digital_tech_archives/intermediate.html) that a DI, presumably 2k back then, costs $180k--240k.

In my area is seem all the theaters have the capacity for digital projection but just for the pre show commercials not the trailers and not the main feature.

Steven doesn't know how to make a $5M Movie.

I'm pretty sure Duel and Sugerland Express were made for less than 5mil back then and even his biggest films haven't been redulously expensive.

I'm pretty sure Duel and Sugerland Express were made for less than 5mil back then and even his biggest films haven't been redulously expensive.

We are talking future as when the majority in this thread want the Theaters to go away and release everything to PPV and DVD - skipping the Theater Process.

That's when everything takes on the value of a made for TV Movie.

AFI's Silver Theatre in Silver Spring, Maryland projects HiDef. The screening of 'Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream' was startling, the snippets of 'El Topo' were great. Last year, they were supposed to screen a HiDef presentation of Bruce Lee's 'The Way of the Dragon' but that unfortunately did not happen.

as for AMC - I have a bone to pick with them. The only intown DC DLP equipped screen seems to only feature the 3D films but doesn't or can't seem to book standard DLP - what the hell?!? I have to go and support Regal over at Potomac Yard, instead.

Landmark's E Street screening of 'Bubble' looked great in HiDef as well.

Around here (Boston), movie theaters that have digital projectors show Red Sox games in HD during the summer. I think that's a great way to offset the cost of the projectors, and I think it'd be fun to watch major sporting events with a crowd on a giant screen.

We are talking future as when the majority in this thread want the Theaters to go away and release everything to PPV and DVD - skipping the Theater Process.

That's when everything takes on the value of a made for TV Movie.
And every highly paid talented actor and director in Hollywood becomes unemployed because they won't read a script or shoot a frame of film unless they get paid millions of dollars. I wonder what would happen to all these talented people because they'd never ever stoop so low as to make garbage "low-budget" TV miniseries like Band of Brothers ($125 million), or Over There ($16 million), or From Earth to the Moon ($68 million), or Warm Springs ($13 million), or any of the other outstanding miniseries (i.e. longer than feature films) that cable television has produced over the years. I guess they'd have to find jobs someplace else.

I personally would not miss many of the half-billion dollar action eye candy features Hollywood is producing these days. The big studios are producing fewer films every year because they're putting all their money into these big budget behemoth movies which are more marketing than plot.

I think the real problem is that most theaters just plain suck, especially outside of New York and LA. As good as sitting at home in front of your expensive 10ft screen setup can be it can never replace the collective experience of seeing a good movie on a giant screen, on the first weekend.

Bottom line is that until there are quantum leaps in projection quality, I absolutely refuse to watch a digitally projected film; you still can't beat the look of a good print projected well (read: not AMC, more like Century theatres. Alas, with their purchase by Cinemark, high quality presentation may have gone out the window.)

What are you basing this on? My wife works for Cinemark Corporate and they do a pretty good job as far as I can tell. And believe me, I see a lot of movies. I get to go for free and I live about one mile from one of their multi screens. They installed DLP projection several years ago, maybe 4 or 5. They recently announced that it was their intention to install at least one DLP projector in every theater they own. And now they are going to do an IPO, so hopefully the capital raised will allow them to expand and improve the experience even more.

I was noticing that ads in the San Francisco Chronicle for "300" had asterisks by some theaters. Those indicate digital screenings and to my surprise my local theater here in Martinez is one of them. Most of the Cinewest theaters have at least one digital auditorium.

I seen Casino Royale in 100% digital and it toatlly kicked ass. Other movies I recently watched in Digital were Norbit and Wild Hogs. They both looked great but were far from good movies :) I saw the Astronaut Farmer which I think was digital too. All of our cineplexes around here have digital. Carmike, Hollywood (Wallace), and Cinemark.

What are you basing this on? My wife works for Cinemark Corporate and they do a pretty good job as far as I can tell. And believe me, I see a lot of movies. I get to go for free and I live about one mile from one of their multi screens. They installed DLP projection several years ago, maybe 4 or 5. They recently announced that it was their intention to install at least one DLP projector in every theater they own. And now they are going to do an IPO, so hopefully the capital raised will allow them to expand and improve the experience even more.Because I just don't think Cinemark has the long term reputation for quality that Century had.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but I've been in one too many Cinemark "cracker boxes."

I hope CInemark cares about quality, but one way to prove that would be to stop installing DLP projectors until their quality improves to be equivalent to film.

OK, I just saw my first digtally projected feature at what claims to be the only 100% digitally projected theater in the country (http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/). The GF wanted to see a romantic comedy and I did a good job. Late Night Shopping (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0250491/) was pretty funny, cleverly written and fun to watch, especially the scenes with the georgous Shauna Macdonald who you may remember as the Scottish agent from MI-5.

But here's the rub: this clearly wasn't 2K 24p. There were aliasing artifacts all over the place. The screen was filled with staircasing whenever the camera moved and the resolution may have been better than a DVD but not by much. To make things worse, the aspect ratio was wrong. This was clearly shot in 1.85 but they projected it at 2.35 squishing the image and making everyone look like stretched SD on TNT-HD. I sent the theater an email (they say they'd love to hear our comments and feedback) so we'll see if they 'fess up.

Other than the projection issues, the place is a dream! It has a snazzy bar, pretty good food and booze at reasonable prices, food delivered to your seat at the beginning of the feature(!), enormous chairs that recline and have what are practically coffee tables for your food, and the back of each theater had table seating so you could sit and eat together. The place specializes in foreign and art films (making the thought of real 2K projection hard to believe).

They 'fessed up. One of their employees emailed me back saying that ideally they'll project HDTV transfers from D5 or HDCAM which work well with their 2K projection system. Unfortunately not every feature arrives in a high definitiion format so they're on their own to upconvert whatever they get into something that can be digitally projected.

Late Night Shopping arrived in PAL digibeta format, suitable for PAL broadcast but not for digital projection. They did their best to make an acceptable 24 fps VC-1 12.5 Mbps master from it but there's only so much they can do with an interlaced standard defintion format.

That's the worst thing I've ever heard. Just godawful. Even worse than showing a scope film cropped to 1.85:1 or without the anamorphic lens, with only the center channel working. It actually rivals the mess I experienced a few years ago at a highly publicised Blues Brothers screening where the film was shown in standard definition on a cheap video projector used for preshow advertisements. In front of the director, James Brown, and other guests. At least it was in the right aspect ratio though.

Now you know that you should go to a real theater next time. I don't think there are any Oregon though.

Late Night Shopping arrived in PAL digibeta format, suitable for PAL broadcast but not for digital projection. They did their best to make an acceptable 24 fps VC-1 12.5 Mbps master from it but there's only so much they can do with an interlaced standard defintion format.576/50i transfers should have a 1:1 frame relationship between the video and film frames making the interlace a moot point. Even with the lower resolution there shouldn't have been distracting artifacts. It sounds like they tried to convert the interlaced 50i to 24fps instead of creating 25P and slowing it down.

576/50i transfers should have a 1:1 frame relationship between the video and film frames making the interlace a moot point.
You're right. If the original source was film, then the PAL source should have been sped up to 25 frames per second and been progressive thus no interlacing.

Even with the lower resolution there shouldn't have been distracting artifacts. It sounds like they tried to convert the interlaced 50i to 24fps instead of creating 25P and slowing it down.
That's the only thing I can think of. Perhaps they made tried to make 24p by dropping fields giving some incomplete frames or maybe even mismatched fields. It really seemed like they were completely interlacing artifacts because the staircasing only appeared during camera motion.

That's the worst thing I've ever heard. Just godawful. Even worse than showing a scope film cropped to 1.85:1 or without the anamorphic lens, with only the center channel working.
Oh good heavens, it wasn't the end of the world! Late Night Shopping is a cute low budget feature shot in a few weeks mostly on sets with some dreary Scottish scenery thrown in. It was funnier than any comedy I've seen in the past few weeks and it was actually sharper than many projected films I've seen recently.

Oh good heavens, it wasn't the end of the world! Late Night Shopping is a cute low budget feature shot in a few weeks mostly on sets with some dreary Scottish scenery thrown in. It was funnier than any comedy I've seen in the past few weeks and it was actually sharper than many projected films I've seen recently.
Maybe that's how you see it, but for some, it's important.

If you're a couple with small children who decides to go out to the movies, it really sucks having a poor experience. After you make babysitting arrangements, spend the gas and time to drive to the theater, pay your ransom at the theater then pay the sitter when you get back, it really stinks when you realize you essentially got jacked by a poor product.

Maybe that's how you see it, but for some, it's important.

If you're a couple with small children who decides to go out to the movies, it really sucks having a poor experience.
I guess I didn't make myself clear enough: we didn't have a poor experience. We both enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, it's was a little disappointing to find out afterwards that we had paid to watch what was effectively a DVD with upconversion artifacts and the wrong aspect ratio, but at least we got to see a clever comedy instead of Wild Hogs or Reno 911: Miami. The seats were comfy and the food and beer were great!

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough: we didn't have a poor experience. We both enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, it's was a little disappointing to find out afterwards that we had paid to watch what was effectively a DVD with upconversion artifacts and the wrong aspect ratio, but at least we got to see a clever comedy instead of Wild Hogs or Reno 911: Miami. The seats were comfy and the food and beer were great!
I guess that's the point. You paid movie ticket prices for essentially a DVD. You didn't get your money's worth. It's like going to an italian restaurant for pasta and ending up with a plate of spaghetti-o's.

From your point of view, at least, you didn't end up with dry Ramon noodles. Of course, the restaurant seats were comfy and the beer was great...

I'm confused with the question. All films in your local theatre have an equivalent resolution far beyond the HDTV or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD specifications. Converting to digital only decreases resolution. Starting with digital will do you none better because digital video cameras cannot match the resolution of 35mm film.

I'm confused with the question. All films in your local theatre have an equivalent resolution far beyond the HDTV or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD specifications. Converting to digital only decreases resolution. Starting with digital will do you none better because digital video cameras cannot match the resolution of 35mm film.
Wish all that was the case. But while the original negative has superb permanent resolution (4000--6000 equivalent line maximums), the mass-produced prints and mechanical projection shrinks theater on-screen resolution to about that of 720p HD (see the graphs and tables in consultant Matt Cowan's paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf)).

More recent digital intermediate (DI) (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9879656&&#post9879656) use, which bypasses print production and mechanical projection in e-cinemas, should enhance on-screen resolution, although this needs some confirming (published) measurements. Using DIs, whether 2k or 4k scans, to make prints for most theaters, actually limits resolution to that of the scanning equipment (compared to full-resolution negatives). -- John

Wish all that was the case. But while the original negative has superb permanent resolution (4000--6000 equivalent line maximums), the mass-produced prints and mechanical projection shrinks theater on-screen resolution to about of that 720p HD (see the graphs and tables in consultant Matt Cowan's paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf)).
And that's when projected by someone who knows and cares what they're doing. I've recently seen two projected movies of recent releases that were painfully less than DVD resolution. Nobody cared.

I'm surprised by that quote of 4000-6000 line negative resolution. I've never gotten much more than 3,000 usable lines out the full frame of highest quality 35mm still film and any standard motion picture format other than anamorphic mattes out at least 25% of the frame on top of that.

I guess that's the point. You paid movie ticket prices for essentially a DVD. You didn't get your money's worth. It's like going to an italian restaurant for pasta and ending up with a plate of spaghetti-o's.
This may sound like crazy talk on the AVS forum, but when I go to a movie I'm actually more interested in plots and dialog and characters than how many lines of resolution I'm seeing. I've paid a lot of money to see many many godawful movies in my life and I'm glad this wasn't one of them. As I said before, this DVD resolution presentation actually looked better than recent movies I've seen projected in other theaters.

BTW, the owner just emailed me an apology and said that he's dropping two free passes in the mail for me.

I saw "300" at the Contra Costa Stadium 8 today and asked how many auditoriums are now DLP and they have 4. They just installed them a month ago. The presentation was very sharp though the sound was too loud (a friend with me agreed). And unfortunately it looks like some ruffian threw a soft drink at the screen which you would only notice if there was something bright over that area (dead center). I would have though by now screen would be made to be resilient to such abuse but I remember seeing there from the last film I saw in that auditorium.

I saw 300 at Livermore Cinemas DLP and the picture was grainy. The only thing that looked crystal clear was the credits.

Please tell me that my presentation was messed up, because I find it hard to believe that Zack Snyder wanted the film to look intentionally grainy.

I paid more attention to some of the trailers for clarity and most of them looked very good. 300 had a lot of special visual effects so it had the look of a graphic novel. That probably produced more graininess though I find graininess can be the effect of compression. I see the same with HD transport streams. However with most of the images such as faces etc. the grain was not so noticeable.

Good luck with that. Most people, even people who work at the theater, aren't as picky as we are. When my wife and I saw Happy Feet, there was a noticeable distortion in the sound that really bothered me. To me it sounded very harsh during loud scenes, almost like digital clipping. I went to the lobby and told the customer service person about it, and she said they would send someone to take care of it. Needless to say, it wasn't fixed and I sat through the whole movie thinking how much better our setup at home sounds.


I had an experience with this film at a Loews theater, a new facility built last year, and bad surround sound blending--the frequency response of the main speakers was radically different than the surround speakers, so as a sound panned hard left, the sound quality changed from okay to PA trumpet speaker quality. It was shocking to observe this in a new theater installation.

saw the documentary 'Sharkwater' (which I highly recommend btw, it comes out commercially in the Fall, this Friday in Canada) at the American Film Institute's Silver Theatre (Silver Spring Maryland) last night in DLP and the hidef underwater camera footage looked amazing.

question: how do the DLP presentations over at NYC's Ziegfeld and Los Angele's Arclight theatres look? Given the largeness of the screens, are digital artifacts/imperfections more obvious?

the DLP screening of '300' over at National Amusement's Cinema De Lux in Fairfax Virginia was amazing, if not a tad grainy. The best DLP screen/auditorium in the DC area if you ask me.

I saw "300" at the Contra Costa Stadium 8 today and asked how many auditoriums are now DLP and they have 4. They just installed them a month ago. The presentation was very sharp though the sound was too loud (a friend with me agreed).Just because you thought it was too loud doesn't mean it wasn't mixed that way; see it in a THX theatre to find out for sure.

(Seriously, my pet peeve are the many theatres that show movies at too low a level because someone complained the movie was too loud…)

Now if someone does digital projection with a technology that doesn't crush blacks, I might be interested. Unfortunately, I don't think one exists (yet.)

My local theatre FINALLY has DLP (though 2 years too late,had they had Ep III in DLP I would have seen it 20 times as opposed to just 8)

Just because you thought it was too loud doesn't mean it wasn't mixed that way; see it in a THX theatre to find out for sure.
I wasn't saying the mix was too loud, the theater's audio level was too loud. I am a musician and have mixed audio myself so know when audio levels are too high. A friend who was with me also thought it was too loud. This was a matinée and levels may well have been set for a full evening crowd. Just in case I may pick up a db meter and take it to shows.

I saw Premonition at the same theater and the trailers were loud but film wasn't. To an extent this may be the mix as I am always adjusting between HD channels which have different levels of sound mixes, often CBS being the hottest and some of the Premium channels at the lowest. I think digital compression and mix levels are something that is going to have to be worked out over the next few years. Perhaps someone will develop a device than can monitor the sound in the theater and adjust for auditorium crowd levels.

Trailers currently are mixed several dB louder than the film.

That having been said, a lot of people used to seeing a film in an AMC or other theater think the movie is too loud when seeing the film in a THX theatre, and don't realize that many of today's films are mixed to be loud, really loud.

THX theatres are the only real guideline since (at least in theory) they should be presenting films at THX reference level.

Trailers currently are mixed several dB louder than the film.
I've read the sound levels in trailers are compressed so they're evenly loud. Apparently the "problem" is that people in audience talk during the trailers. Can you believe that! Talking during the trailers? How rude! :D

I've seen a whole audience laugh through an action trailer. The two previous trailers had a close variation of "...but what they/he didn't count on was..." The second one was for Under Siege ("the one thing the terrorists didn't count on was an ex-Navy SEAL...") and the coincidence was mildly funny. But when the trailer for Passenger 57 told us "but the one thing the terrorists didn't count on was an ex-cop...", the whole place exploded with laughter. It was like we'd just seen the trailer for three Die Hard clones!

Come on, terrorists THINK!

"In a world where..."

"Forget everything you know about..."

"Nothing can prepare you for..."

"And only ONE MAN..."

Just because you thought it was too loud doesn't mean it wasn't mixed that way; see it in a THX theatre to find out for sure.

(Seriously, my pet peeve are the many theatres that show movies at too low a level because someone complained the movie was too loud…)

Now if someone does digital projection with a technology that doesn't crush blacks, I might be interested. Unfortunately, I don't think one exists (yet.)
Even "THX" theaters get turned down so people don't complain. All THX means is that they bought equipment from their list, got it set up once, and continue to pay their fee.

Digital projection equalled 35mm release print quality in 2000. True digital cinema projectors beat release prints in most aspects as soon as the print starts to roll. As far as "crushing blacks," you would be surprised to see how dark film projections don't get.

Sony has given up on film sound. They only put their digital tracks on the film to support the remaining installations that still have Sony equipment.

Even "THX" theaters get turned down so people don't complain. All THX means is that they bought equipment from their list, got it set up once, and continue to pay their fee.
Then they won't stay THX theatres when people like me call THX and complain. THX theatres are inspected from time to time. I can connect you with some of the folks at THX who do so.

Digital projection equalled 35mm release print quality in 2000. True digital cinema projectors beat release prints in most aspects as soon as the print starts to roll. As far as "crushing blacks," you would be surprised to see how dark film projections don't get.Simply put, you're wrong. Every digital projection system out there crushes blacks. Badly. I've seen "the best" (at Arclight and Century) and for dark detail they are sadly lacking compared to good film presentations.

Simply put, you're wrong. Every digital projection system out there crushes blacks. Badly. I've seen "the best" (at Arclight and Century) and for dark detail they are sadly lacking compared to good film presentations.

I think that's really the key: It's not so much resolution as range.

It's range that allows for images to "pop". Flat images don't dazzle us.

I think that's really the key: It's not so much resolution as range.

It's range that allows for images to "pop". Flat images don't dazzle us.Correct - digital projection does have resolution in most cases, and I'm not about to say that brightly lit digital images don't look great; it's just the problem where black is crushed badly.

Example: I saw Episode III several times in film projection and then saw it projected digitally. Whole areas of detail in Darth's robe just became a flat black in the digital presentation.

Film has a several advantages over video:
Film tracks color and contrast (dynamic range) logarithmically. This fact enables film to capture a larger color pallet and larger dynamic range, when compared to the obligatory effects of video gamma...or (Rec 709) artifacts i.e. crushed shadow detail and blown out whites.

I quoted John Mason's link below...while the author does acknowledge this perceptual advantage, it does not address "it's" origin?

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf
As noted in the introduction, there are other aspects of picture management, such as color space and dynamic range, contrast and bitdepth that make significant contributions to image quality, and must be considered in an overall evaluation of filmic images
The following link is from Peter Putman's article that appeared in Millimeter Magazine, though dated 1999, the information is still enlightening IMO.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_you_dont_colorimetry/
Kuttner agreed that achieving a "film look" will be the toughest challenge for any electronic cinema system. Film has a greater color depth than video and tracks color logarithmically like the human eye. Any electronic projection system will need to support 36-bit color with 12 bits per color plane. 150:1 contrast will probably be the minimum acceptable grayscale, although daylight film stocks can achieve 1,000:1 contrast.

And what is the minimum resolution necessary to approximate film projection?
….probably a 2K image to be acceptable-2048 x 1556 pixels," says Kuttner. "That works out to an enormous file, typically 75 MB per frame. It also provides more color shadings at the low end of the grayscale, key to film-like quality.

Feb 1, 1999 12:00 PM, Peter H. Putman

Film has a several advantages over video:
Film tracks color and contrast (dynamic range) logarithmically. This fact enables film to capture a larger color pallet and larger dynamic range, when compared to the obligatory effects of video gamma...or (Rec 709) artifacts i.e. crushed shadow detail and blown out whites.
What about film projection (which is really what this topic is about)?

I've been to a few movies lately and while the highlights have been blindingly bright, I've seen a lot of dim areas that had no real detail. What really drives me nuts is the 48 fps shutter which to my eyes flickers like crazy in scenes with lots of contrast, especially with camera motion.

What about it?? Film is still the benchmark for the industry!
The Vision Thing
As audiences, we crave film projection because it delivers pictures as close to reality as we are likely to get in an "artificial" perceptual environment. With high resolution, random grain, wide contrast, and a seemingly infinite palette of colors, 35mm motion picture film has set a very high standard for electronic projection systems

What about it?? Film is still the benchmark for the industry!
So it cannot be improved on? How disappointing. I've seen some terribly blurry movies in the last couple of months. It's a shame they can't do any better than film.

http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/SiliconImaging_faq.html
If the SI-2K MINI captures pixel data with a 12-bit A/D converter, but only records at 10-bit, isn’t
dynamic range lost?
No. While we are not using a logarithmic file format for saving the information off the camera head, the gamma-correction LUT we are using was designed to visually maintain the entire dynamic range that the camera head can deliver in a 12-to-10-bit conversion workflow. Also because we are capturing a 10-bit file using a high-dynamic range/low-noise sensor, there is much more room for under-exposure than other 8-bit tape-based formats and CCD-based HD cameras, so the user can maintain highlight detail by under-exposing the camera without damaging any information in the shadows. The noise floor is the only limit for dynamic range. We are not doing what is typical of the Rec. ITU-709 transfer curve that clips the highlights and throws away the over-exposure headroom of the sensor, nor are we relying on dynamic knee controls to “automatically” squeeze as much visual dynamic range into the recorded image. The LUT, along with its associated fixed knee, is designed to transfer the entire dynamic range that the sensor captured to the 10-bit CineForm RAW™ file format
What is the dynamic range and sensitivity of the SI-2K MINI?
Greater than 10 f-stops, or around 2000:1.

tbrunet, do you realize that this thread is about digital projection? You're talking about digital cameras. Two different things.

OK, I just saw my first digtally projected feature at what claims to be the only 100% digitally projected theater in the country (http://www.livingroomtheaters.com/). The GF wanted to see a romantic comedy and I did a good job. Late Night Shopping (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0250491/) was pretty funny, cleverly written and fun to watch, especially the scenes with the georgous Shauna Macdonald who you may remember as the Scottish agent from MI-5.

But here's the rub: this clearly wasn't 2K 24p. There were aliasing artifacts all over the place. The screen was filled with staircasing whenever the camera moved and the resolution may have been better than a DVD but not by much. To make things worse, the aspect ratio was wrong. This was clearly shot in 1.85 but they projected it at 2.35 squishing the image and making everyone look like stretched SD on TNT-HD. I sent the theater an email (they say they'd love to hear our comments and feedback) so we'll see if they 'fess up.

Other than the projection issues, the place is a dream! It has a snazzy bar, pretty good food and booze at reasonable prices, food delivered to your seat at the beginning of the feature(!), enormous chairs that recline and have what are practically coffee tables for your food, and the back of each theater had table seating so you could sit and eat together. The place specializes in foreign and art films (making the thought of real 2K projection hard to believe).This sounds suspiciously like Cinetopia Scowl. If so, they've been pulling the same shenanigans for some time now. I went there to see one of the Harry Potter movies (or maybe it was Narnia, one of those visual kid type films anyway) and my experience was very similar. I was all pumped up to see my first Digital Cinema screening and if I had been by myself I'd have just left. It may have been a little sharper than the usual movie house but the AR was messed up just like you mentioned! I couldn't believe it. I mean, I can see fuzzy movies in proper AR close to my house and even at economy time prices. If I drive all the way to Vancouver and pay premium pricing for a ticket I sure don't expect to see distorted images. They clearly didn't have their sh*t together. I've never gone back...


ron

This sounds suspiciously like Cinetopia Scowl. If so, they've been pulling the same shenanigans for some time now.
Yes, they do sound like similar places. Cinetopia has some bad reviews in CitySearch (http://portland.citysearch.com/review/41872492) It sounds like most of the people who liked the place didn't mention the video and those who liked the video didn't necessarily know what they were seeing.

If there is a movie where the visuals really matter, then this is the place to go :rolleyes:

Each movie theater has it's own character. One is a huge screen which is very sharp. :rolleyes:

high def really makes a different :rolleyes:

No one complained about a low def presentation with the wrong AR so you must have been mistaken there, R11! :D

Someone had to counter my boring technical review of Living Room Theaters with a "we did not notice any imperfections in the format, as the previous reviewer did." (http://portland.citysearch.com/review/44690149) review. With all the blurry movies I've seen projected in the past two months, I'm not sure if anyone knows how movies are supposed to look any more.

tbrunet, do you realize that this thread is about digital projection? You're talking about digital cameras. Two different things.Just thought a primer regrading the limitations for standard HD color space and gamma might be helpful..I guess not :)

http://www.hdforindies.com/2005/04/digital-cinema-summit-day-one-raw
Digital Cinema Summit Day One Raw Notes: X'Y'Z' Color Space
X'Y'Z' is the color space the DCI (Digital Cinema Initiative, backed by the studios) has recommended to be used for digital projection. It's not RGB, it's not YUV, it's not CMY or CMYK, it's not Lab. It's X'Y'Z' ("capitol ex prime why prime zee prime"). It's based on the CIE 1931 XYZ color space

…they studied contrast sensitivity function to the human eye, and decided to go with gamma 2.6 to match human

…11 bits was good enough, but chose 12 for convenience and headroom in digital systems

The other side of the situation is that improving low priced HD and 2K 24P electronic cameras offer indies a more affordable workflow. How many super high budget Hollywood features have little in the way of story telling? The demise of theaters may not equate to lower quality features.BTW scowl the subject was addressed in this very thread, and my post was a elegant solution to said "digital workflow" ;)

Just thought a primer regrading the limitations for standard HD color space and gamma might be helpful..I guess not :)
What limitations?

I already linked specific examples for standard video gamma and color space (aka) "limitations" i.e. what are the two reasons film is superior to "VIDEO" and still the benchmark in the industry?
1)Dynamic Range
2)Color Depth

*Rec. ITU-709 transfer function, which btw is the standard optical electrical x-fer function for the Sony CineAlta HDCAM and the Panasonic VariCam.

I already linked specific examples for standard video gamma and color space (aka) "limitations" i.e. what are the two reasons film is superior to "VIDEO" and still the benchmark in the industry?
1)Dynamic Range
2)Color Depth
I read those. I didn't find anything that specifically says film is all that better. If anything film's non-linear response is limitation (unless you don't own a light meter). Who wants bright shadow detail and dim highlights? Not me.

For some reason I don't have a problem with lack of "color depth" either.

No one complained about a low def presentation with the wrong AR so you must have been mistaken there, R11! :D I remember I was sitting there after the movie started just kind of looking around at everyone else in the theater and nobody else even seemed bothered by it in the least! Amazing...

It reminds me of the last two Superbowl partys I've gone to at a long time friends house. He has a rear projection widescreen TV, (but no HD service of course). Last year he had the SD stretched to fill his screen, so this year you can imagine my delight when I got there in seeing that he actually had it set to non-zoom, centercut 4:3 with black bars! :) Alas, it was just not meant to be... Shortly after the game started this semi-loudmouth guy grabs the remote and zooms it up cutting off the top and bottom of the picture and my friend who owns the place says, "Oh, I was wondering why that was messed up like that. Thanks". Sometimes it's hell being a video purist ;)


ron

I think these digital theaters could project a standard DVD on their big screens and 80% of the people would be totally impressed by it.

Last year I went to a film that was supposed to begin at 4:30. By 4:40 I walked out to the lobby to ask if the film wasn't supposed to have started 10 minutes ago. They apologized though it took another 5 minutes to start. Returning I mentioned about having to get the film going and got blank stares from the people in the audience. I bet they would have spent the entire next two hours eating popcorn and watching the slideshow if I hadn't done something about it. Just think we drive in traffic with these people.

Last year I went to a film that was supposed to begin at 4:30. By 4:40 I walked out to the lobby to ask if the film wasn't supposed to have started 10 minutes ago. They apologized though it took another 5 minutes to start. Returning I mentioned about having to get the film going and got blank stares from the people in the audience. I bet they would have spent the entire next two hours eating popcorn and watching the slideshow if I hadn't done something about it. Just think we drive in traffic with these people.

scary aint it - ?!

Simply put, you're wrong. Every digital projection system out there crushes blacks. Badly. I've seen "the best" (at Arclight and Century) and for dark detail they are sadly lacking compared to good film presentations.

Well shut my mouth! Be careful when speaking in absolutes. And what did you compare the video image to? Film on the same screen? When you do, you find that film prints aren't as dark as you might believe them to be. Just like film, digital projection needs proper care for the best presentation. A little TLC and proper setup make all the difference in the world. What was the setup in your "best" theater?

Simply put, film has no contrast. :D

Seriously, I've seen plenty of films that had nothing I would call "black", at least how they were projected. Lots of dim featureless grays though. If it were a TV, I wouldn't buy it.

All you have to do is put up a butterfly* split of a DI playback from disk and a synchronized print made from the DI negative and there is no doubt as to film's superior contrast and color gamut versus digital projection. I know as we do this on every DI project to check the calibration of the laser recorders and the lab calibration.

What's really telling is when clip goes to black. The film side of the screen is black. The digital half is gray.

Now do you ever see this qaulity in the mulltiplex. Never! You are looking at a minimum third generation print. So all said, digital projection typically trupms film but only because of print quality. As for the negative and first generation prints, film is still far superior.

* A butterfly split is done by masking the left side of the film projector and the right side of the digital projector. The final DI files are played out in realtime but electronically flipped left to right. The print is also run in sync with the digital playout and you get a split image with a commen reference point. Hence why it's called a "butterfly" split. This is the ultimate test of the entire digital and chemical chain. The print should closely match the digital within the limitations of the projector.

Just think we drive in traffic with these people.

scary aint it - ?!

I recently purchased a better helmet in preparation...

....
What's really telling is when clip goes to black. The film side of the screen is black. The digital half is gray.

Now do you ever see this qaulity in the mulltiplex. Never! You are looking at a minimum third generation print. So all said, digital projection typically trupms film but only because of print quality. As for the negative and first generation prints, film is still far superior.
I agree, but you also have to be careful of qualifiers such as "far superior." without specifying what parameter you are talking about.

I also assume that your digital projection is a true digital cinema projector that has its brightness, gamma, and color primaries recently adjusted. I've seen a surprising number of "screening rooms" (even at laboratories) that are poorly calibrated.

The image of a well-shot work print can be beautiful, but DI/digital projection process locks in that quality and preserves more of that vision than a release print ever could, especially over multiple plays.

I also assume that your digital projection is a true digital cinema projector that has its brightness, gamma, and color primaries recently adjusted. I've seen a surprising number of "screening rooms" (even at laboratories) that are poorly calibrated.


The projectors are Christie CP2000i. These are the top of the line. The calibration is checked daily. Note that a DI timing room is much more than a screening room. As you are doing the final color correction electronically rather than chemically, calibration is critical.

What's really telling is when clip goes to black. The film side of the screen is black. The digital half is gray.
Half gray? Good. They're just one more bit away from matching film. In digital, you can always add more bits.

Now do you ever see this qaulity in the mulltiplex. Never! You are looking at a minimum third generation print. So all said, digital projection typically trupms film but only because of print quality. As for the negative and first generation prints, film is still far superior.
Which is good because if the first generation prints weren't up to digital quality, digital projection would look no better than a projected film.

I think the popularity of ENR processing has come from the lack of contrast we're seeing in projected films lately. I know this doesn't change the way the print is made but at least with these films I can at least recognize attempts at generating contrast.

Come to think of it, the restoration of "Touch of Evil" a few years ago had amazing contrast (and that film needed it!). It probably helped that I saw it at an art house theater instead of a googleplex.

Half gray? Good. They're just one more bit away from matching film. In digital, you can always add more bits.


It doesn't matter how many bits you add if the light engine can't produce the dynamic range or has a finite light leakage. Yes, film leaks light as well but much less than any current digital technology.

Yes these problems will be solved perhaps by laser projection but we aren't there yet.

It doesn't matter how many bits you add if the light engine can't produce the dynamic range or has a finite light leakage. Yes, film leaks light as well but much less than any current digital technology.
If the light engines leak too much light, how could we be seeing crushed blacks? Shouldn't these be featureless grays?

The digital projection I saw was plenty bright for me so I don't think they're just projected dimly. The films I've seen lately are far too bright for my eyes -- I don't like squinting in daylight scenes and there's nothing that's really dark on the screen. If the dynamic range of film means I'm going to be punched in the retinas during every bright scene then I can live without it, thank you very much.

BTW, aren't release prints fourth generation? Camera negative (1) is printed on an interpositive (2) for editing and color correction, which is printed onto many internegatives (3) which are used to print many many more release positives (4). Were you talking about DI's which digitally "skip" a generation?

I saw "The Shooter" yesterday and found it to be the best example film I've seen so far for digital projection. There were a lot of outdoor scenes the were very crisp looking. Since this was the second week of it showing it was in a smaller auditorium which leads me to wonder if they move the Cristies around to different auditoriums. I'll ask next time.

I saw the Hoax last night in a Regal theater. They have a digital projector for the previews and the many many commericials before the feature. Even though the projector wasn't square with the screen and the theater lights were still on, most of the previews (with a couple of exceptions) looked excellent and perfectly sharp. Very impressive.

But when the (film) feature started, we were clearly watching approximately DVD resolution, maybe even a little less. It looked like SD in every wide shot. The huge views of New York from the roof of a building (shown twice) were certainly no better than a DVD. I looked hard for the shadow detail people say film has. There is a night kidnapping scene and I tried to see detail in the wrinkles of dark clothing but all I saw was the typical featureless grays I normally see.

I'm still looking forward to being impressed by the resolution that is supposed to be in a projected film. I'm starting to understand why people are happy watching regular DVDs on their widescreen dsiplays.