Why the obsession with big screens? Surely you get worse definition? (1 Viewer)

[SD_Brian]

Lighten up. My Freudian inference was strictly tongue-in-cheek and, considering that I have a 125" projected image in my own living room, was a joke made at my own expense.

 

[JeremyErwin]

For folks like you, there's a proposal known as 1440p (2560 x 1440) in the works. Destined to be a niche format.

 

[PaulDA]

I was not only responding to your comment but (indirectly, though you could not have known that and, for that, I apologize) to the now semi-ubitquitous use of such reasoning in these kinds of debates.

 

[John H Ross]

That's another issue though. Just what IS the immersive experience one gets at the cinema? Sitting on the front row of a cinema offers a completely different experience to sitting on the back row. Sitting on the far left/right is different to sitting in the middle. Ideally only the very centre seats are "ideal" for optimum picture and sound but, in a packed cinema, how many people get those seats (when I go I normally pick off-peak times so getting those seats is virtually guaranteed!)

If you sit centre/back of most cinemas the screen could barely be described as "immersive". So just what is the big deal? Presumably the answer is that it's "what the director intended" which is fine, but generally only 10% of audience members will get that experience. And let's not forget that most films are edited on screens no bigger than, what, 32" in editing studios. So who knows what the director's intention was. Normally it's to get the sodding film out on time!! ;-)

 

[PaulDA]

People have different preferences about where to sit at the cinema, but for anyone who gives a modicum of consideration to selecting an "ideal" position, the range is somewhere within the 5-7 seats in the centre of the middle third of the rows. I prefer to be a bit back from dead centre, so my seating arrangement and screen size at home reflect that (using the STMPE viewing angle calculator easily available on the web). Before I had my "big screen", I watched my films on a 32 inch 4:3 SDTV (with an "enhanced widescreen" mode that concentrated the set's resolution into a 29" 16x9 portion of the screen). The PQ was quite good but it did not make for the "immersive experience". And sitting close enough for it to do so was not an option with an SDTV (no matter what its quality), thus a bigger screen. I have a 64" screen in 16x9. My room can accommodate 80" or so in that format, but that would place me out of my personal preference relative to the "ideal zone" at the cinema.

As for going to the cinema, if I cannot choose a time and site where I can sit in my "ideal zone", I don't go (or before I had my own setup as an alternative, I would go again if I thought the movie warranted it).

 

[Edwin-S]

I only want to ask one thing. Who, on this forum, has ever said that a person is not a member of the "home theater club" because they don't have a large screen TV? I can't remember reading anything like that.

Also, the size of a home theater is based on several constraints: money, room size, obsession with re-creating the movie theater "experience", and presence of a significant other.

I belong to the "dump truck in a flower bed" group of people: those whose TV overwhelms the living room. Luckily, I'm single so I don't have to listen to a wife "bitching" about how the room decor is being ruined.

To me, perception of detail is related to the viewing distance from the selected screen size. Sit too far away and the "detail" perceived is lost. Sit too close and the "detail" is lost because a person is distracted by artifacts such as screen door effect.

 

[John H Ross]

I must say I've never been to see a film twice purely because the PQ or SQ wasn't up to standard. I have been twice because I loved the film.

This whole screen size thing does tend to re-shift the focus of cinema off of being a medium for storytelling and onto being a kind of moving art gallery though, don't you think? The story is everything and that can be told on a crappy old black and white 14" screen if it's told right.

 

[PaulDA]

It is a kind of "moving art gallery". The story is important, but I do not think it is EVERYTHING. There are plenty of films where the visual presentation is essential to the story and the manner of its presentation plays a HUGE role in whether it can be fully appreciated. A pan and scan of 2001 on a 13" black and white TV simply cannot come close to allowing one to fully appreciate that film. Hitchcock's 39 Steps, on the other hand, can be appreciated on that TV to a high degree.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Paul - apologies if you got the wrong end of the stick, but Brits are heavy users of sarcasm.

 

[John H Ross]

Well I guess cinema is a moving art gallery in some respects, hence the term "motion picture", but ultimately it is simply a device for telling good stories, like books or the theatre.

True, 2001 is a good example of a movie where the visuals are everything. This is, of course, a bad thing. Without the visuals I'm guessing 2001 would be hailed as a confusing, boring, plotless pile of poo that's only truly great if you're bladdered with booze! So what it actually is, is a confusing, boring, plotless pile of poo with pretty pictures!

Don't get me wrong, I like 2001 but I'd like it better if Alex North's score had been retained, mainly because North's music helped drive the narrative a hell of a lot more than the classical stuff Kubrick dumped in there.

So there you have it. 2001 has pretty pictures and pretty sounds, but as a movie... ??

My opinion is that if you take any movie, shrink it down to 15" and it still works then it's a GREAT movie. If it NEEDS a 100" screen to work then it's failed on SOME level.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I think the visuals help tie the 2001 story together. Sort of a finishing touch. The scenes in space are a little hard to follow if you just listen to the soundtrack.

 

[John H Ross]

Ummm... well, obviously. Did I suggest removing the visuals? Nope!

 

[JeremyErwin]

This scene, believe it or not, was one of those things that persuaded me to upgrade from a tiny television to something a bit larger. If one can't read her eyes, the joke loses some impact. Is it critical to the movie? Absolutely not. But it's critical to the experience of getting absorbed into the film.

A big screen lets you see al the details-- what's in focus, what's not in focus. Big plot elements, and small jokes.

 

[John H Ross]

Ummm... well... I saw those words and got that joke perfectly well about 20 years ago when I first saw this movie on a crappy old pan/scan VHS tape - being played on a (probably) 26" 4x3 TV set! I was absorbed into the film just fine!

And, ironically, I can see it perfectly well on that screen grab you just posted (without clicking to enlarge!) which, on my screen, measures exactly 17cm horizontally across!

 

[JeremyErwin]

How many metres from your eyes to the screen?

 

[PaulDA]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If it NEEDS a big screen to work, it is simply applying itself on a "large canvas". Leonardo's The Last Supper DOESN'T work well if you shrink it--though you can still get the gist of it. Same for Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling. For those films that "need" a "big screen" to work, the need is part of the art, not a shortcoming. Film is more than simply "telling a story". If it were, we would have no need for film as books would suffice. And while books are wonderful (I have several thousand on my shelves), they are not movies which are not plays. Each form has its own unique methods of expression and if one can make a good film that can be appreciated to a large degree on a 15 inch screen, that does NOT obviate or diminish the value of a film that requires a much bigger screen to be properly appreciated. 2001, once projected onto a sufficiently large screen, is not a "confusing, boring, plotless pile of poo" (at least owing to its size--how you feel about the film is entirely a matter of taste).

Just to go back to the Renaissance for a moment:

I could hang the Mona Lisa on any wall in my house and it would look fine and anyone could appreciate it. If I took Sistene Chapel ceiling home and somehow shrank it to fit my house, it would no longer "work" properly. Same for some (not all, mind you) films.

 

[bigluigi]

The bigger the screen, the bigger the WOW!!! Anything else is just..........rubbish.

 

[John Dirk]

I can't believe this one garnered so much attention. Why don't we just all watch whatever we're comfortable with [or can afford] and call it a day?

John

 

[PaulDA]

While this is sound, practical advice, in the sense that no one should insult or denigrate another's choice of "screen size", I do think there have been some interesting discussions that have grown out of this thread. Naturally, as I have participated in it, I think the "debate" over whether a film has failed, on some level, to do its job if it "needs" a big screen to be fully appreciated is an interesting topic. But, in the end, your sentiment should prevail.

 

[drobbins]

I have enjoyed a movie on my daughters video ipod listening to the earbuds, but I would never call that a good movie watching experience. Definitely not HT.

I have seen the Blue Man Group on a 27" CRT, on my 113" theater and live in concert. At the concert I had OK tickets about half way down the side. I actually enjoyed the DVD in my theater better than the live show. On the DVD, they did a great job in making you feel you are in the front row. Maybe it was also the audience, but the DVD has more energy than the live show had. Watching on the 27" CRT felt like watching a MTV video.

There is more to movie watching than just a good story. The story is a large part of the movie, but special effects can help tell that story. Im my opinion, for action or si-fi movies, the large screen is a must.