Pat wrote:
Dave C. wrote:

I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere
near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring
in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a
real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling.



Well you're not a home theater expert, that much we can agree on. Your
typical living room or family room can be filled with fantastic video and
sound for very little money. Oh, and if you think only a high-end home
theater can beat the video and sound quality of the average movie
theater,
you need both your eyes and your ears checked.


Sorry, but watching a letterboxed movie on a 32" 4:3 CRT isn't going to
compare to the experience at *any* of the local movie theaters around
here. I'm not an expert, but I'm not a sucker either.

And if the "average home theater" where you live can be beat by $1,000
home set up, then I feel sorry for you. Is your town stuck with
1970's-era equipment?

And if the "average home theater" where you live can be beat by $1,000
home set up, then I feel sorry for you. Is your town stuck with
1970's-era equipment?

Actually, I'm comparing my own home theater to large chain cineplexes I've
visited recently like Regal, AMC and Showcase. There is no comparison.
Both video and sound quality are MUCH better at home. But why should that
be surprising? Good quality home theater electronics are cheap, relatively
speaking. Ironically, the small independent theaters (in the areas I've
lived in anyway) have better picture and sound quality than the large chains
do. And my home theater still kicks the crap out of ALL of them. Our home
theater isn't exactly high-end, either. The only odd thing about our setup
is that we use an active mid-bass driver in addition to an active subwoofer.
That, and our monitor was professionally calibrated in our living room. We
also have all components placed exactly where they should be, so video and
sound quality, and surround effects are all maximized.

My point is, it's EASY to have a home theater setup that is MUCH better
quality than the average movie theater, as far as picture and sound quality
goes. But first you need to understand that setting up a home theater is
not as easy as just buying the right components. You have to have a good
room for it, and arrange the room around the home theater, rather than
arranging the home theater around the room. That means you set up the home
theater, removing or relocating furniture if necessary to accomodate the
proper placement of home theater components. I CRINGE when I walk into
someone's home to see a $5000 plasma monitor propped up in a corner, with 6
speakers placed seemingly at random. Some people seem to think that it
doesn't matter where all the home theater components are placed, as long as
they are there, somewhere. :) If you are one of them, then YES, your
local large chain movie cineplex is going to have better picture and sound
quality. -Dave

Well for what it is worth, George Lucas wants digital projection, so I doubt
it really matters what we think. Also for what it's worth, theatres use
xenon projection lamps, they no longer use carbon arc.(Unless the switched
back after I got outof the business fifteen years ago.

"Dave C." wrote:

For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.

Ever heard of a DVD supporting HDTV? Not yet, buddy and that doesn't come
close to 35mm resolution much less 70mm!

It is possible to come close to film quality but refitting theatres is
frightfully expensive and initial tests with real people (as opposed to
industry insiders) shows that digital projection is not nearly as good as the
manufacturers (primarily TI) had hoped.

If you can't see the difference between a 35mm film and a DVD, well, I guess
your local theatre has bad or poorly maintained equipment.

In article ws.net,
Dave C. wrote:

For a little over a thousand bucks (cheap!, relatively speaking), a properly
adjusted home theater setup will kick the CRAP out of any movie theaters'
image quality AND sound quality.

Speaking as a state-licensed projectionist who has done film and
video projection in all formats (16/35/70mm/video), and who does
projection work for film festivals and occasional fill-in work at
various theatres, I can absolutely assure you that any 35mm film
system which is moderately well maintained and operated at least
semi-competently will kick the crap out of _any_ video system with
respect to picture quality and, in many cases, sound quality.

I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still
insist on using film based projectors?

Because 35mm film is a worldwide standard and has been for over
one hundred years. There is a huge production and distribution
infrastructure that has been built up to accommodate the format
and, even if there were an economically viable replacement format
of comparable quality (there isn't), it would take a couple of
decades to replace film.

The cost issue is huge. A top-quality 35mm projection setup (not
including screen or sound equipment, which is comparable for both
film and DLP) can be had brand-new for about $30-50k (much cheaper
if used) and can be expected to last for 30-50 years with minimal
maintenance. Every current theatrical release (and a huge variety
of repertory titles) is available in the format.

A 3-chip 2k DLP system (e.g. Barco DP100) and video server (e.g.
Quvis, Avica, etc.) costs upwards of $150k and relatively few titles
are released in that format. Who knows how long the equipment will
last, but, given the rapid advances in electronics, it won't be
more than 5-10 years, at most. Last I checked, no theatre in the
US had actualy bought one outright. The 100 or so test systems
(out of 35k total screens) are (were?) all lease deals or special
promotions.

There is still no universal, worldwide standard for DLP releases,
nor is there a workable business model to allow a wide-scale
installation to occur (mostly because the only benefit goes to the
film distributors, who save money by not making $1500 film prints,
while the exhibitors would need to pay to install the machines).
This is to say nothing of the inferior quality of current DLP systems
when compared with 35mm film.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly?

Improved quality, lower costs (for exhibitors), availability of
new and old program material, longevity of equipment, distribution
infrastructure already in place, worldwide standard for which a
wide variety of venues is already equipped.

DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology)

No. Even with the best projection equipment and scalers, DVD looks pretty
crappy on a big screen. Other video formats (HDCAM, Digi-Beta, Beta SP, in
personal order of preference) look better, but still pale by comparison to
16mm film, to say nothing of 35mm.

and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies
movies on film.

That depends. A single 35mm print can (and often does) contain
the information to reproduce four difference soundtracks: SDDS
(Sony Digital), DTS (timecode on film syncs a separate CD-ROM to
the film), SRD (Dolby Digital), and optical (which may be mono,
Dolby-A stereo L/C/R/S matrix, or Dolby SR stereo L/C/R/S matrix).
(I'm intentionally leaving out magnetic sound and other obscure formats
here.)

The digital formats all sound good--comparable to DVD sound--if
the house system (speakers, amplifiers, EQ) is designed and installed
well. A Dolby SR optical track can sound very good, _if_ the
playback system is properly aligned. If you hear a Dolby SR track
that sounds bad, the chances are very good that the theatre has
maintenance issues and is in need of an A-chain alignment.

All of that crap combined doesn't disappoint me as much as to pay
10 bucks for a ticket to see a movie displayed at a low level of brightness
(cheap projector bulbs) with a grainy soundtrack.

These aren't "film" issues; they are "installation" and "maintenance"
issues. What makes you think that theatre owners who can't or
won't go to the minimal amount of effort and expense needed to
properly present 35mm film (a format with which we have a century's
worth of experience) are going to do any better with DLP (which
has far more possibilities for failure, and also far more catastrophic
failure modes).

A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a
film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff.

Depends. If we're talking static images (titles, etc.) or some
computer animation, I'd agree with you. If we're talking about
full-motion live-action movies, I'd strongly disagree. Have you
seen how bad scrolling credits look, even on a 2k DLP system?

(such as any DVD player
hooked up with component cables)

No.

Sure, DLP can not display true black. And
y'know what? . . . your average movie patron will never notice. They will
see the really BRIGHT display of a DLP and think (Wow). So black looks
gray? Who the frick cares?

I do. I get annoyed by film prints from Deluxe Hollywood (easily
the worst of the major release-printing labs) because they have
bad shadow detail as well, and blacks look horrible. Compare to
prints from Technicolor Hollywood or Deluxe Toronto to see how good
film can look in this regard.

Meanwhile, the soundtrack will be like 1000% improved if the source is DVD.
Even the worst DVD movies produced today offer 5.1 channel dolby digital. I
hate dolby digital, but the source (DVD) sounds MUCH better than any movie
theater, even at the relatively low bandwidth of DD 5.1 encoding. Some DVD
soundtracks go up to 7.1 channel DTS (awesome), which very few movie
theaters are even equipped to handle, at the moment.

Have you ever heard a good theatre system? I'm thinking that you probably
haven't. As a starting point, look for a THX-certified theatre. Not all
of them sound good (and many non-certified houses do), but most of them
are well designed.

Heck, my own Onkyo/Yamaha/Cambridge Soundworks setup in my living room would
blow the woofers off of any movie theater sound system for a seating area of
about 150 seats or less. At extreme volume levels, even.

No it won't. Do you have any idea what type of equipment is used for a good
theatre system?

Isn't it about time for the film projector to go the way of the dodo? I
think all movies should be released on DVD only. Anybody with me? -Dave

No. Not until a standardized, affordable digital system is developed that
looks as good as 35mm or--better yet--70mm is available.

In the meantime, I'd suggest finding a better theatre in which to see movies;
if there aren't any good ones near you, move.

In article ,
Alan wrote:

The only reason I suspect some truth in this is that DLP projection
will get better and better, as higher resolution devices come out, and
devices with higher operating frequencies are produced to produce finer
levels of brightness accuracy.

I don't expect film to improve in any perceptable way.

Film has improved constantly since day 1. The currently available 2383 and
2393 Eastman color print stocks blow away the 2386 stock that was available
ten years ago. Improvements in film continue to be made, resulting in lower
grain, better color reproduction, better contrast, etc.

In article ,
D J wrote:

Currently there are about 300 dcinema theaters in the US.

No. Try 106 installations at 81 locations (source:
http://www.dcinematoday.com/).

Within 5 years
expect most major markets to have several dcinema screens.

We'll see.

Also expect most
people to flock to these theaters. The big advantage will be no degradation
in quiality after the 1000 showing and resolution equivalent to film.

There should be no problem running a film print for 1000 shows
without damage. If your theatre is constantly damaging film, then
it has an operator issue or an equipment issue that needs to be
fixed. If the typical theatre can't maintain its film equipment
(or operate it properly), what makes you think that the situation
would be any better if the film equipment is replaced with (much
more complicated and expensive) DLP equipment?

In article [email protected], wrote:

Well for what it is worth, George Lucas wants digital projection, so I doubt
it really matters what we think.

What makes you think whatever George thinks matters?

Also for what it's worth, theatres use
xenon projection lamps, they no longer use carbon arc.(Unless the switched
back after I got outof the business fifteen years ago.

Some theatres still burn carbon, mostly older single-screen houses. I
run arc lamps about once a month.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:28:23 -0400, "Randy Sweeney"
wrote:


"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
59...
"Dave C." wrote in
eenews.net:


DVD is too low resoultion when blown up to the size of a theatre
screen.



Do you think anyone would notice at the average viewing distance of a
movie theater, though? Also, a new high def format has just been
"agreed" upon. So resolution shouldn't be a problem much longer,
regardless of viewing distance. -Dave

Even 16mm film is WAY better than HDTV. Good widescreen filmed
productions are much higher resolution and better contrast than any HDTV
product yet on the market. Maybe when fiber optics are run into every
home and your local cable company can count on 10-20ghz of bandwidth,
into the home, you'll start to see that.

That said, I'm quite happy watching movies on my HDTV.

I attended a HD conference in Hollywood a few years back... the analysis by
the industry was that 1080 was equivalent to the actual performance of 35mm
in distribution.

The problem was that 35mm practice was in general quite poor compared to its
inate resolution and the resulting product at the mall cineplex was easily
matched by 1080.

Or they could fix the way they show 35MM. Many theaters have under
gone upgrading in the past few years.
Thumper

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:32:34 -0500, Pat wrote:

Pat wrote:
Dave C. wrote:

I'm hardly a home theater expert, but $1,000 wouldn't get you anywhere
near the quality of most movie theaters. Even if you're not factoring
in the TV/projector, you'd have to spend a lot more than that to have a
real high-end system. This was a real bad attempt at trolling.



Well you're not a home theater expert, that much we can agree on. Your
typical living room or family room can be filled with fantastic video and
sound for very little money. Oh, and if you think only a high-end home
theater can beat the video and sound quality of the average movie
theater,
you need both your eyes and your ears checked.


Sorry, but watching a letterboxed movie on a 32" 4:3 CRT isn't going to
compare to the experience at *any* of the local movie theaters around
here. I'm not an expert, but I'm not a sucker either.

And if the "average home theater" where you live can be beat by $1,000
home set up, then I feel sorry for you. Is your town stuck with
1970's-era equipment?

There is nothing that can compare to seeing a movie in an up to date
Theater. You are compating apples to oranges.
Thumper