Why distribute movies on film at all?

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.

I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters still
insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD
in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of
them are released on DVD simultaneously.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology)
and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies
movies on film.

So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm,
movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing and
shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the
U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it can
be shipped for a buck.

Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think they
should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level
playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've heard
all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting
movies. 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.

A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a
film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD player
hooked up with component cables) 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?

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.

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. And my home
theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could
make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity.
If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what
the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality
DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it using
professional grade electronics.

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

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.

Not so sure HD projectors can get the lumens at the size of a movie
theater screen.

"Dave C." wrote in message
eenews.net...
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.

I'm not saying do away with movie theaters. But why do movie theaters
still
insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD
in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some
of
them are released on DVD simultaneously.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display
technology)
and better sound quality than the scratchy soundtrack that accompanies
movies on film.

So why not use CRT or even DLP projectors to play DVD movies in ummmmmm,
movie theaters? Think of all the money that would be saved in producing
and
shipping heavy, bulky rolls of film. A DVD can be shipped anywhere in the
U.S. in two days for less than three bucks. If time is not critical, it
can
be shipped for a buck.

Some might say we should do away with movie theaters entirely. I think
they
should just upgrade their video and sound technology to compete on a level
playing field with the family rooms of many of their customers. I've
heard
all the complaints about obnoxious patrons, cell phones, etc. interrupting
movies. 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.

A DLP projector (for example) with a bad bulb STILL looks better than a
film-based projector, if the source is up to snuff. (such as any DVD
player
hooked up with component cables) 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?

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.

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. And my home
theater is hardly top end. Give me a Circuit City credit card and I could
make any movie theater sound 1000% better, regardless of seating capacity.
If I can do it using consumer grade equipment bought retail, imagine what
the pros could come up with, starting with the source of any good quality
DVD player and building a (multi-hundred seat) movie theater around it
using
professional grade electronics.

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



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

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

Excerpts from Roger Ebert. A bit old (1999), but I don't think his
views have changed much...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2000134/entry/1004176

================================

I am as firmly in support of video production as I am opposed to the
alarming specter of digital video projection in theaters - a subject
that most movie critics have ignored.

Most people in the industry believe the hype that digital projection
is destined for the near future. The fact is that digital projection
is nowhere near being practical or affordable, and even if it were -
are video and film the same thing?

Some perceptual scientists believe video creates a hypnotic mind
state, and film creates a reverie state. Why is it that we sense,
however, vaguely, a different mental state in a movie than while
watching television? How ironic if Hollywood threw out a century of
film to adopt a technology that did not evoke the mind-state that
people buy movie tickets in order to obtain?

My own feeling is that when a film is really working, it takes me to a
mental state that nothing on television has ever approached. Nor have
I ever felt, even on the very best video projection systems, the film
experience.

I am proud of my home-theater setup. A superb Runco quadrupling
projector, DVD as source, THX surround, 10-foot-wide screen, etc. But
film it ain't.

Digital projection, of course, is not to be confused with projected
television. It does not scan the screen but organizes the material
into digital "frames." Whether these frames do the same thing as
frames of film is doubtful, but Hollywood has certainly not spent one
dime to find out.

As for subjective comparisons between projected video and projected
film, I have here an email from a man who asks not to be quoted by his
name (which you would recognize and respect), who points out:

"They're digitally projecting at 2k but also comparing against film at
2k, so that both film and digital are of equal resolution. And both
are half of the normal film resolution of 4k. I would love to see them
put up something digital against a film image by Freddie Young, even
derived from an older (grainier) film stock. In short, as I see it,
the test of digital vs. film is rigged to make digital look good."

I published a long article that questions widespread beliefs about the
Texas Instruments digital projection system and extols a much cheaper
film projection system called MaxiVision48, which uses existing,
proven technology, and produces a picture its patent holders claim is
500 percent better (not a misprint) than existing film or digital
projection, take your choice.

What we have here is a company (TI) with unlimited resources that
wants to take film away from us and replace it with their system. And
the film community is so technically uninterested and illiterate that
there is no outcry. I myself feel keenly inadequate on this subject. I
am not technically trained. But I got into this issue and the more I
find out about it, the more disturbed I grow.

As we bow gratefully to this wonderful final year of the first century
of film, let us hope it is not one of the final years of celluloid
itself.

"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.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"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.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.


Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film to
HDTV? I am very curious.
I see a movies on a satellite HD channel like "The league of extradonariy
gentlemen", and it is stunning and clear. Then I see other movies on the HD
channel that look DVD quality - blurred etc. For the lower resolution
movies, are they just playing DVDs on a high def. channel? How do they play
movies on a high def. channel to get the high def resolution?

noone

"nonone" wrote in
:


"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"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.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.


Does anybody know a way to roughly compare the resolution of 16mm film
to HDTV? I am very curious.
I see a movies on a satellite HD channel like "The league of
extradonariy gentlemen", and it is stunning and clear. Then I see
other movies on the HD channel that look DVD quality - blurred etc.
For the lower resolution movies, are they just playing DVDs on a high
def. channel? How do they play movies on a high def. channel to get
the high def resolution?

I suspect that they are sometimes filling air time with DVD movies
upconverted from 480p. I notice my movie provider plays the same movies
over and over a lot on their HD channel, which tells me the available
HDTV movies are still limited. They are adding more all the time,
though.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
God is an evolutionist.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:06:27 -0400, "Dave C." wrote:


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?

Yes.
Thumper
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

"Dave C." wrote:

But why do movie theaters still
insist on using film based projectors? Most hit films are released on DVD
in widescreen shortly after the film is released in theaters. Heck, some of
them are released on DVD simultaneously.

So what's the point of using the old dinosaur projectors, exactly? DVD
offers the same image quality (better, depending on the display technology)

Wrong. You have some research to do on resolution of 70mm film vs DVD. Even 35mm
(4000 lines) prints have a resolution an order of magnitude greater than DVD
(700 lines). You would be seriously unhappy with a DVD projected on the typical
theater screen, even with a commercial projector.