[Stormwolf_16XL]

Hi, I'm preparing to buy a CRT projector, and I was wondering something.

I just read a thread and they discussed how "movie x" looked better on their projector than at the movei theater. Is that possible? How can a scaled 480p (actually 480i stored) source compare with Celluloid film at say: Silvercity. Are people just BS'ing and bragging about their porjectors or is there truth to the possibility that I could possibly acheive at least a similar result with a say: mid-end projector. Help please.


- Stormwolf

 

[KennyG]

Not only is it possible, it is the rule rather than the exception.

Every CRT I've seen looks better than the average theater.

When I go to the theater now (once or twice a month) it's just to see what I hope is a good movie, something I can't wait for the DVD release.

When I want picture quality I'll watch at home...in fact going to the theater really helps me appreciate just how good this projectors are.

Once you get your pj, and it is set up well, you'll easily see it too.

There is a huge difference.

 

[lsteere]

Common issues with video quality at movie theaters:


- All to often the picture is noticeably out of focus. Sometimes badly!

- The picture is either to dark, or looks washed out. Rarely is it just right.

- The screen often has nasty blemishes - large smudges, spit-wads etc

- Unless you see the movie the first day or two after release, it's bound to have streaks and other blemishes.


Some theaters are better than others - no doubt about that - but the majority are distinctly sub-par.


All the above are for the most part, non-issues with home theater.


Also, home theater doesn't have to be expensive. I had been watching movies on a 21" computer monitor for over a year. Just recently I purchased a used CRT projector for $500 that is in better than excellent condition and blows a beautiful picture. I built a very nice screen for about $30. All told, that's less than the cost of a low-end television and I get a picture that's a lot bigger and better than the largest RPTV.


The fact is, if you go to the movies on a regular basis, it won't be long (about 30 movies for two people) before you exceed the cost of building your own budget HT system.

 

[Art Sonneborn]

Stormwolf,

I think the operative words are "average theater". I've had my present HT setup for a few years now but in that time all the films I've seen have been at my local multiplex. I believe that film shown under optimum conditions( apples to apples since our HTs are optimized ) is superior ,certainly in resolution, to any DVD. I don't think this is that noticable really in the foreground stuff but background detail is significantly clearer on film. I think this is about to change ,however, with DTheater. I think the difference even in that parameter will now be very difficult to see. I will agree that with almost every other parameter, including blacks, color depth,focus etc our CRTs look better right now.

Art

 

[ebr]

You asked "how can this be?" and some folks have given some good reasons (I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie properly in focus at a big cinema). But also consider this -- the average HT screen is about 100-120" diagonally.


How big is that screen you're watching at the multiplex - 100 feet, maybe? Show that same film projected on only 100" and it would be absolutely amazing. So, in reality the quality of the film is definitely better, but you're perception and realization of that quality isn't better due to the factors under which you much experience it.

 

[BenjaminWoo]

Hi,


I'll put in my two cents. If I recall properly, I remember reading that film is transfered to HD then downconverted to 720x480 and compressed by MPEG2 for DVD. So 35mm film if done right is more detailed and has a wider gamut of colours than DVD.


But a HT with 9" CRT projector w/ LC lenses projecting onto a small screen will have a higher contrast range that will allow what fine details that do exist on DVD to stand out with punch and 3D depth.


Ben

 

[CaspianM]

Based on twenty times bigger cinema screen and well maitained equipments, I believe there is no comparision. Here the local cinema the picture and sound are just awesome. From tech point of view, as you indicated film is simply superior to a second/third generation down converted video. I assume the film we see at the theater is a copy and DVD is second generation from hi def transfer. Most who say their PJ is better should push their local cinemas to do a better job with their set up.

When I go to see a film what astonishes me is the giant size, brightness, well saturated and more vivid colors and better detail. That aside I hear a clear distinct sound character that I have not heard yet in home even with a 20K sound system. My local theater is only a few years old and presentation is just prestine on consistent basis. That is said, watching a good transfer hi def film on CRT PJ is much closer to film but then again we are talking interlace. And, I yet to see a better picture from some twenty PJ set up that I have seen than my own Nec XG & 100" diag Studiotech screen.

 

[Cygnus23]

Quote:

Originally posted by ebr You asked "how can this be?" and some folks have given some good reasons (I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie properly in focus at a big cinema). But also consider this -- the average HT screen is about 100-120" diagonally. How big is that screen you're watching at the multiplex - 100 feet, maybe? Show that same film projected on only 100" and it would be absolutely amazing. So, in reality the quality of the film is definitely better, but you're perception and realization of that quality isn't better due to the factors under which you much experience it.

I'm not sure shrinking the image to 100" would improve the quailty of the film image, because you would need to be as close to it as home theater to view it. If the field of view is the same at 10' as 50', it doesn't matter what the size of the screen is, the grain of the film will scale also...

In a theater you also have flicker, the film jumping around in the projector, and oftentimes bad splices to contend with.

 

[ebr]

Cygnus,


I agree with your "relative perceived distance" analysis, but most home theaters don't have screens as big as the same perception from the center to the middle front of a stadium seating theater. Those screens are huge usually larger in your field of vision than most HT.


Still, good point to clarify.

 

[BenjaminWoo]

Hi Cygnus23,


I believe shrinking the screen size in a theatre would improve picture quality because it allows for higher brightness and wider contrast range that would make fine details pop out as I stated above. I saw that Kevin Costner baseball movie, not Field of Dreams but the other one about him being a Detroit Tigers pitcher in Yankee stadium, on a very small screen in a VIP room and my jaw just dropped. I never thought film could be that bright and sharp. In contrast, my first viewing of Wild Things was on a gigantic screen whose picture was way too dim. I couldn't see any details. I liked the movie and knew that the picture could have looked better on a smaller screen. I saw it the following week on a smaller screen and sure enough, it did look better.


Ben

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

Going back to the "old" days with lights off during movies, no stadium seating, and none of the current curved screens in the stadium seating theaters - but of course allowing for the large cinemas with their curved Cinerama screens - now that is ENTERTAINMENT!!!! Our home theaters don't overall beat that! But where do you find it anymore??? Point is that movies once upon a time really did look great on the BIG SCREEN, but with a curved stadium seating screen, the bigger the picture the more it sucks!

 

[rorox64]

IMO


some 35mm films, are capable of some 1900 lines/mm at 70% MTF, surely higher than any source used in a home theater environment.


The best CRT pj is not capable of such performance, but the overall quality produced is not so far from that. Let's remember that the magnification factor is some 10-12 times the factor normally applied at home...


In the other hand there is the fact that in the real life, in the 99% of the cinemas the image is at the most comparable to the best home tehater environments. In the most of the cases a perfect HT set-up can beat the result obtainable in the Cinema for a lot of reasons... the seat position, the light bulb used in the cinema pjs that in the 99% of thre cases are too old, the films that in the 90% of the cases are dirty and damaged, after some projections, the lenses of the cinema pjs that have a certain timelife and in the most of the cases are too old, and so on...


ciao

Romano

 

[KennyG]

Some good points here, but for me the reason my HT looks better than our theaters (and it does) it because of black levels, and bright whites.

The theaters in my area do not make blacks like my CRT does, nor do they have the detail in those blacks...and at times their bright whites are to hot.