Slashdot Mirror

I guess all the movie pirates in CA will have to drive to Oregon and Nevada to record movies. darn. Drive-ins are always good.

What is this "Drive-in" you speak of?

Something like this...when the Californians aren't losing their shirts in the casinos, they can head up to Rancho & Carey and cam a flick. :-)

There is a poll on century theaters to see the most anticipated upcomming scifi movie here.

No, I regularly drive a good 30 minutes out of my way just to see movies at this theater, simply because they do such a good job with the projection and sound. They usually seem to hit the SMPTE recommended brightness level without too much trouble. The showing of "Shadow" that I saw was no exception. The parts that looked too dark were not really black, but rather an underexposed, washed-out grayish black. It was clear that it was actually printed that way on the film, and not just a problem of projector brightness. I'll bet the filmmakers probably did make it look that way on purpose, even though there are other ways to create "atmosphere" that don't involve throwing away color, contrast, and shadow detail.

I agree that brightness is a very big problem with most theaters today, but the Century 25 (as well as most other Century-owned theaters) seems to actually take the time and spend the money to do it right. For that, they get my business, even if I have to drive a long way. I should point out that people who are excited about Texas Instruments' new DLP projectors are in for a disappointment if those machines ever see widespread use. They also use xenon lamps to provide light, just like film projectors. Spendthrift theater managers looking to save a few pennies on electricity and bulb replacements will likely underpower the bulbs on DLP projectors too. So this digital "revolution" will just give us the same old crappy, dimly-lit pictures, only with lower resolution and compression artifacts to boot!

Slightly off-topic: the Metreon sucks in my opinion. Great sound, but crappy picture quality. If you want to see the best theater in the Bay Area, try the Century 25. It may be a long drive for you, but it's worth it. It's just about the only theater around here that I've seen which actually meets SMPTE recommended brightness levels. Most theater owners have gotten so cheap these days that they are unwilling to buy high enough powered lamps to adequately light their screens. Once you see a movie projected at proper brightness, you'll be saying to yourself, "You mean movies are supposed to be that bright?" You won't want to go back to seeing movies on underlit screens anymore.

Also of note is the fact that Century generally has no advertising before the movie, other than previews. They also take very good care of their film prints. I went to see "Gladiator" at the Century 25 last year a full two and a half months after it was first released, and their print was still in mint condition. No scratches, no dirt. A rare thing these days.

No, that's different, because going to color film did not require theaters to install new projectors. Since each new movie required a new piece of film anyway, they could use a new process for each movie, without requiring theater owners to perform any upgrades. (Besides, Technicolor's three-strip process looked great right from the start. It didn't require much improvement.)

Digital projection, on the other hand, requires a new and very expensive projector to be installed at the theater. A good film projector costs about $30,000, and a crappy one costs a little less. In contrast, digital projectors currently cost about $250,000! And theater owners are notoriously spendthrift. It's hard enough to get them to spend the money to change out the Xenon bulbs when they should, which is part of the reason why film projection looks so dark in a lot of theaters these days (and by the way, that will still be a probelm with digital projection, since such projectors still need Xenon lamps to provide light). Knowing that, do you really think that once a theater buys a digital projector, that they will ever, ever upgrade? No! Whatever gets installed today will be it for generations to come. The resolution will never increase. That's what has me worried.

The fact is: films are constantly being filmed in higher and higher qualities.

I only wish that were true. The real fact is, except for a brief period during the 1950s and 1960s, photography for movies has always gone towards cheaper and more convenient, not higher quality. 40 years ago, there were several releases a year that were made using 65mm negatives and 70mm prints. Then filmmakers and studios switched back to 35mm negatives, and a mixture of 70mm and 35mm prints. Then when theatrical digital sound came along in the early 1990s, 70mm prints died off, and everything is now 35mm-only. It looked like advancements in the grain structure of film stocks were going to make up the difference, but then filmmakers decided to start using the Super-35 process, yet again reducing the negative area and thus reducing quality. To see what I am talking about, compare the DVD of 1961's West Side Story to just about any movie from last year or this year. Even with DVD's limited 720x480 resolution, you can see a difference. Just imagine what it looked like in 70mm! A movie made nearly 40 years ago looks better than anything being made today.

Also, back in the days of big-screen epics, theaters took great pride in providing good presentation. A projectionist used to have to go through a full six months of training before being allowed to even enter the booth of an actual theater! Nowadays, some kid who did a good job selling popcorn gets shoved in the booth with no training and 20-odd screens to run all by him/herself. No wonder presentation quality sucks these days! And the sad thing is, the worst-case scenario of today is pretty much the only standard that proponents of digital ever talk about. They just point to the problems I mentioned and say, "Well, at least we'll be better than that." No mention of how they might try to equal the quality of yesteryear, back when moviegoers actually had it better than we have it today.

Talking about theater quality, I don't really have it as good where I live as I would like, but I still prefer what I get to see at the Century 25 (a 45 minute drive for me) over most places. They have Kinoton projectors, so the images are pretty much rock steady, and they keep their screens well-lit. Only rarely do I see scratches or dirt (which proponents of digital would have you believe magically appear on every frame of film ever made, no matter how careful you are with it). The sound is good, too, thanks to their auditoriums all being THX-certified.

However, if you want to see a real movie theater, the one that made me fall in love with 70mm film when I was a kid, then go to this site and click on the "pictures" link in the bottom frame. Then click on the link labeled "GCC Northpark West 1&2" (sorry, the site does not allow direct linking). That is what a truly great movie theater is like. It breaks my heart to know that it is gone now.

And just to let you know, I am not a sentimental old fart who is misguidedly clinging to the past. I am only 27 years old. I work in the computer industry. I am not a Luddite or a technophobe. It's just that I've seen with my own eyes what film is capable of delivering, and TI's digital system just doesn't measure up. I want them to get it right before they permanently stick us with an inferior solution.

I don't know where people like you go to see movies. I hardly ever see problems at the theater I usually go to. I keep hearing about these "dirty, scratched up" film presentations, but I never see them. I guess I'm just spoiled. If the theater you go to does such a sloppy job, why don't you complain? Or try a different theater?

The heavily compressed (gotta love those MPEG2 artifacts, they really heighten the experience!), 720x480 images on DVDs are no match for even 16mm film, let alone 35mm. Hell, 35mm has higher resolution than even HDTV. Have a look at this resolution chart for movie special effects. The effective resolution of film is about 4000x3000 for a full-frame image. You really prefer 720x480 DVDs to that?

That's not even getting into the issues of color and brightness ranges, both of which are much greater on film than on video.

I've no doubt that digital video will eventually replace film, but it's not good enough yet. Those people who go around saying it's already better have probably just never seen (or don't want to see) a really high-quality film presentation. Properly done, film still provides much greater image quality than any currently existing video system. (Not to say that video won't eventually catch up, but it's got a ways to go yet.)

As an added bonus, Century has just about the best quality control in the business. Every time I go, the projection and sound are absolutely fantasic, practically flawless.

In contrast, AMC is very bad about advertising, as is Sony's Lowes chain. Don't bother giving them your money. Shop around and find a place like Century or some other chain that still cares about the customer and support them instead.

In any case, the grain size for film that responds to visible light is extremely small, and keeps getting smaller every year with the introduction of new film socks. I've seen 70mm prints of movies from the 60's and 70's, such as "Lawrence of Arabia" and "West Side Story" that looked truly amazing, and yet today's 35mm film is getting to where it looks almost as sharp. That's because the grain size has decreased dramatically over the years, and will continue to do so in the future. That's a big advantage of sticking with film. You can always benefit from advances in film quality without having to buy a new projector. But once you switch to digital, you are stuck with the same pixel count forever.

If you're looking for a reference about 4K resolution being equivalent to film, here is an article that talks about a panel discussion between film and digital proponents. The folks from Kodak talk about how 4K scans show the level of detail on 35mm film to be between 8 and 12 million pixels, which is much greater than the paltry 2 million pixels offered by 2K digital.

And if you really want to see just how good film can look, try checking out Technicolor's newly revived dye-transfer printing process. Articles talking about it can be found here and here. It's pretty amazing. I've seen it in first hand, and it blows digital projection away. The picture looks so sharp and clear it's as though you could reach right into the screen and touch it, and the color is absolutely incredible! If you live in the Bay Area, you can see a dye-transfer print for yourself if you go to the Century 25 in Union City. "Mission: Impossible 2" and "Shanghai Noon" are showing there with dye-tranfer prints. It's the best film quality I've ever seen. If you can, go check it out!

Besides, what most people do not realize is that film is actually better than any of the digital systems that have been demoed to date. Here are the problems:

• Resolution
  A frame of 35mm film contains millions of pixels. A spokesman for Kodak recently stated at a panel discussion that film has between 8 and 12 million pixels per frame. The digital systems being proposed as a replacement have about 2 million pixels (1920x1080). Does that sound like comparable resolution to you? Doesn't to me.
• Color range
  Film has a much greater color range than the RGB color representation used for digital projection. And the color range for film continues to increase. Technicolor recently revived the dye-transfer printing process that produces even greater color saturation than normal film. You can see this in action if you live in the Bay Area. Go to the Century Cinema 25 at Union City and see "Mission Impossible 2" or "Shanghai Noon" to see one of these prints. (Note: Do not go to see "Dinosaur" expecting to see a dye-transfer print. This is showing with a normal film print.) If you really want to see just how good film can look, this is your chance.

Yes, yes, I know that film is prone to scratches and digital is not. However, if you go to a good, quality theater with good projection, you will not see any scratches except around the reel changes, which will be going away soon since printing houses are moving towards using extended length reels (ELRs) for exhibition prints, which can contain the entire film on a single reel.

Film has higher quality than any currently available digital system (and I say "currently available" because I know that it is possible for a digital system to fix the problems that I mentioned, but I am talking about what is available today, right now -- that is what the studios are pushing for). Replacing film with the digital systems of the level of quality that we are seeing today is like replacing a good analog audio system with 8-bit 22kHz digital audio. It may be "digital", but that doesn't mean it's "better".

When it comes down to it, the only reason to get excited about this is because it will save the movie studios money. Given all the crap going on with the MPAA/DeCSS case and so forth, I find it very hard to understand why Slashdotters are excited about the @#$!ing movie studios saving money!! Can someone explain this to me please?