Am I crazy, or is the image in theaters blurry? (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

It's not eyesight...because if you tell the staff and the projectionist does his job, the picture will clear up! I can see the focus change as the underpaid projectionist fiddles with the focus. He gets it right for a split second, but then it goes slightly blurry again. It's quite difficult to focus without any text in the screen, which is why I try to get them to fix the focus during the previews, where the guy can attempt to focus on the credits during the trailers/teasers.

Currently, a DVD at 720x480 resolution, will be orders of magnitude sharper than most of the movie houses in this city. I think we're effectively getting only 240 lines of resolution now. Why even bother going to the theater anymore then? Grrr.

Too bad about Chinook. At least Matrix Reloaded was in focus the two times I saw it there (the 2nd viewing the bulb was at half brightness...those bastards). Matrix Revolutions was projected properly at the Coliseum at least, back in early November.

Amazing how most of the theater chains in the city have gone downhill within a span of 4 weeks starting in November...maybe the technician(s) took a boot to the head(s), skewing their vision?

 

[Chuck Stephens]

One thing that nobody has brought up is damaged optics. I used to work at a theater that had a "burnt" lens that made the entire bottom third of the picture blurry and have a slight rainbow effect. Most companies won't even bother trying to replace them if they figure that it's something that only a "few people will notice". I've heard that phrase uttered more times than it should have been by theater techs over the years. Bottom line is that a blurry movie could be any number of things, some that can be controlled by the staff and some that can't. Unfortunately, this trend is probably going to continue due to the herd 'em in and herd 'em out mentality that most chains have these days. That don't give a S**T about presentation for the most part.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is one thing that will be nice if we switch to digital projection; once set up, digital either works or it doesn't. "The Twenty" that Regal puts out before the films is projected using a lower resolution digital projector; while the color depth and focus easily top the feature presentation, then you're dealing with very visible scan lines.

 

[Max Leung]

Adam, with scan lines they can "de-focus" the projector a bit to smooth them out. Should be easy enough to do considering how everything is out of focus nowadays anyways.

 

[HorstenG]

On forums ranging from Martial Arts, 2nd Amendment Rights to vintage computers, I hear the _exact_ same complaints about the A/V experience in todays movie houses. The ROTK showing I went to was a disaster. 5 minutes of blank picture during the Smeagol's scene in the beginning, the constant sound of metal banging together under the floor, and yes, an out of focus picture. It was so bad that everyone got a free pass as they exited.

I see more than enough staff standing around during and between showings, would it not make sense to have one of them quietly pop in every 10-20 minutes to do a "quality check" looking out for perfect picture, sharp sounds and punks among the patrons?

I would guess that it is a symptom of the entire studio/theater distribution arrangement being fundamentally flawed. Perhaps if the studio did not keep the majority of the revenue in the first two weeks, theaters might actually have enough financial incentive to focus on quality for each and every showing. It is a testament to the power of marketing (and perhaps the dvd-release delay) that anyone goes to the theaters anymore. Ultimately, it boils down to that the only a cinema has to offer is a Big Screen with Big Sound. After reading the theater insider's posts I'm stunned that equipment isnt well maintained and invested in.

It's not just the behavour of other moviegoers that is in a downward sprial, the entire cinema experience seems to be crumbling. Personally I only go to 3-4 movies per year, and I love movies.

 

[RobertR]

A digital projector still has to be focused. Why would the kid focusing it be any more competent to do so than with a film projector? Why would the theater be any more interested in maintaining bulb brightness than with film? In short, digital will NOT be a panacea.

 

[Jonathan_E]

The thing about digital is that once it's focused, it stays that way. With a 35mm projector, you've got a large motor running as well as cooling fans going, which cause a lot of vibration that can cause the lens to loose it's focus, where as a digital projector has very little to no vibration causing this problem. The LCD projectors we use to run "The 20wenty" at Regal haven't been focused since they were set up over a year ago, and they are all still in perfect focus.

 

[Max Leung]

Hmm, good point Jonathan. Home theater setups with digital front projectors don't need to adjust focus either. Same with CRT projectors, but you do need to adjust convergence once in a while.

 

[TommyT]

[rant]Hey, DO NOT be afraid to get up & complain to the theatre mgmt about things like this. [/rant]

Yeah, you might miss a few mins but how does that compare to seeing the rest of the film. Just don't do it during a scene like the big revelation in The Crying Game! Just remember, its your money & you deserve quality for it. If you get no satisfaction from the flunkies at the theatre then call their offices & complain.

The 2nd time I saw ROTK I noticed the image was out of focus too. Esp apparent during the opening logos. I told the nearest employee about it & the problem was corrected in a matter of mins. Very cool. (The complex is indy owned but they're always polite because they're competing with the large chains, which are disgracefully managed.)



Hey, I can sympathize wholly! When I saw Matrix Rev sound was substandard. This was at a Regal-seized Hoyts theatre here in Poughkeepsie. It sounded like a 2.0 mono track coming from behind the screen. The thing that really kills me about this is that you can SEE the surround speakers on the walls in a theatre like this! Makes me think that mgmt randomnly picks theatres to turn the high-end sound systs off, its so obvious that there's nuthin' coming from them.

I had a similar exp when I saw AI at a Regal in Western NY State. The dialogue was liquidy & John Williams' score was nearly inaudible. I complained to the mgr afterwards & he apologized & gave me 2 passes for another show.

 

[Jonny K]

Instead of walking out of a show to complain and then going back, I'll instead walk out and ask for my money back. I won't tolerate missing ANY of the movie. I hate that. I'll then go see a later show and ask them to ensure the quality of that showing.

 

[Tin-Lun Lau]

i notice in some theatres in Asia, theatres have been downloading digital film prints of some of their new movies. "Infernal Affairs 3" was one of those films which has used this method. Perhaps, sooner or later, North American theatres will use this method so we are guarantee cleaner film prints shown in theatres.

 

[Max Leung]

Jonny, your suggestion doesn't work very well when you're watching the movie with a group of people (or a date) - getting a group to agree on a time and date is hard enough! Still, I agree with your sentiment.

 

[Mike Strassburg]

RobertR,

I realize it's only an opinion, but I'm sincerely interested in what "you" find to be better about commercial theaters vs a nice HT.

I haven't had the same experiences as you, so I'm biased towards my HT, but would really like to hear what you feel makes them better. Perhaps you'll touch upon something that I'll try to recreate at home.

I was in Texas a few summers ago when Blade II came out. We found the closest TXH certified, stadium seating, HUGE screen theater and off we went. Seating was decent, but cramped, picture quality was OK, but nothing to brag about other than the big screen, sound was lacking at best as the bass was very weak. Dialogue was fine as were effects since they had 20+ speakers that were visible. Most impressive part to me was that you could put butter your own popcorn, seriously.

I'm currently using my family room for a HT, but will build a dedicated one in the Spring when our new house is done. The advantages I see are many:

Theater is open whenever I'm in the mood for a movie

Seating is VERY comfortable and plenty of room for the 6-8 patrons with NO obstructed view

Sound system is incredibly accurate and detailed with earth shattering bass when needed, which totally adds to the experience

Picture will be around a 120"-150" screen and front projector. That size should be proportionate to a commercial theater at the viewing distances we'll be at. Obviously picture quaility will be MUCH better.

Other perks: ability to "pause" the film for bathroom breaks
HT serves ANY food you're in the mood for
No waiting in long lines

Seriously the only movies we go out to see are the latest kids movies we take our 4 & 6 year old sons to. For them it's the "experience" of going out that is most fun, but I'd rather go to Chuckie Cheese or some other family oriented place and do the movie viewing at home.

I'm hoping your response will give me some ideas.......

 

[ThomasC]

Mike, he's talking about the *BEST* theaters, not the ones you go to. The best theaters have crystal clear projection, crystal clear sound with a good helping of bass, comfortable chairs with armrests that can flip to the back to give you more room, and an audience that doesn't talk. I don't think I can complain at all about my experience watching ROTK at an AMC multiplex 30 minutes away from me. It's only a few years old, so that's probably why it was still so good.

I went to LaMarcus's place recently to watch The Two Towers, and it just can't compare with a commercial theater. A *much* bigger screen and details you can't really see unless you pause it on a 65 inch screen. Plus, with DVDs, if you're a nit-picker, you've got to worry about edge enhancement, flesh tones, etc.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can’t answer for Robert, but I can write what I like about theaters (pretty much what Thomas wrote). And no disrespect of your HT (or anyone else’s).

To begin, I don’t have a dedicated HT room, which means that there are a lot of distractions existing at home that do not exist in a theatre. And even if I did have a dedicated room, some distractions, like my cats would still exist. This is sort of a good/bad deal—true, you can pause and go the john anytime you have the urge, or eat anything you want (and you get to pet the cat on your lap), but these are also distractions that I don’t have in a theatre (where I never buy food and only occasionally a drink).

Since I normally avoid multiplexes and go to early screenings, I rarely get rude crowd behavior—though it does happen on occasion.

I have a reasonable sound system—but the theater systems where I go are as good or better—plus the only time that over-the-top sound is really an issue is for a very limited number of films.

Even the best front projections systems for home use (that I’ve seen and could afford) don’t have the black levels that theatre projection systems have.

Thomas already mentioned edge enhancements and color issues from DVDs—to that I would add the odd occasional digital artifact often found when watching a DVD.

DVDs come nowhere close to the definition that 35mm has—even accounting for the difference in screen size.

Even so, I watch a lot of movies at home and really enjoy the experience. It is just that the theatre has some advantages that home does not.

 

[RobertR]

Mike,

Tom and Lew have given good answers, but I'll add mine. A really good movie theater has better picture quality than ANY home theater in EVERY respect--deep solid blacks combined with a bright picture, virtually no grain, and color and spatial resolution that simply KILLS home theater. It is NOT close. Frank Manrique has posted on here about a specific example that illustrates what I'm talking about: A scene in Ben Hur, where you see an object near Charlton Heston's leg that is nothing more than a blur on DVD, but is clearly resolved as a small lizard with 35 mm film. The information simply isn't there for DVD to do as good. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Please note that I'm not talking about poorly focused, poorly lit projection with beat up, lousy prints. I'm talking about film done RIGHT.

And please don't think I've never seen a good home theater. I'm seen a $50,000 Vidikron projector driven by a Teranex processor, a Sony G90 driven by a Faroudja 5000 processor, and countless other high end projectors (I've visited CES for the past 6 years) using CRT and the various digital formats. I own an NEC XG135LC projector (there are only 2 or 3 better CRT projectors in the world than this one), ISF calibrated by John Gannon of Stereophile Guide to Home Theater and driven by an HTPC (which many people will tell you gives front projector picture quality which is second to none at ANY price). I daresay it looks better than 98% of the setups on HTF. And 35 mm film beats the pants off it.

As for sound, the best theaters don't take a back seat to home theater either. It's all there-volume, clarity, spatiality, bass (that has shaken my seat), at REFERENCE LEVEL.

The other amenities you mentioned are nice, but they really have nothing to do with sound and picture. If I want to relax at home, I'll do so. If I want to see a movie at its best, I'll see it in a good theater.

 

[Jonny K]

Now all I need to know is - What is this good theater you speak of, and where can I find it?

 

[Max Leung]

RobertR, that's all well and good, but very few would want to travel thousands of miles to see this "great theater" you are speaking of. For us mere mortals, what you are speaking of is an abstraction akin to "I got an invite at the Playboy mansion to stay for a month and sample the menu".

What you suggest is a pie-in-the-sky for 90% of the upper-middle-class population. And that sucks!

(But maybe HD-DVD will be close - given that the human eye can barely perceive more than 150 lines-per-inch from a viewing distance of 5 inches, HD-DVD should exceed 100% of the resolution of today's poorly-focused, badly lit theaters of today.)

 

[RobertR]

It's not one theater. It's several theaters acessible to the general public in Southern California (no "superhuman" qualities or "special insider knowledge" needed). Specific examples:

The Westwood Village
The Westwood National
The Culver City Mann (all of the above theaters are run by the Mann theater chain)

The Arclight in Hollywood

The Samuel L. Goldwyn theater (the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences).

By the way, the Frank Manrique example I gave wasn't from a "special" theater, just a 35 mm print of Ben Hur.

 

[Chuck Stephens]

Unfortunately, this only applies to people that live in that area. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see movies at these theaters but for the rest of us around the country and the world things are just getting progressivley worse. This is why I believe that home theater is going to overtake movie theaters in popularity in the next few years.

I just read that movie theater attendance dropped 5% this year and it's no surprise why. The theater chains have only themselves to blame by cutting corners wherever they can in an attempt to maximize profits. I hope that this can be turned around but I'm the same guy who saying that 70mm film releases would make a comeback around the time of Titanic so what do I know?