Is there a new 4K restoration of "Vertigo"? (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Not huge. 50" plasma and I just got a projector on a 108" screen (but I didn't have that when I saw Godzilla). But I swear Godzilla wasn't much more than 50" on this screen, the theater only had three rows.

 

[OliverK]

Those are VERY small screens then - 108" is a nicely sized home theater screen but not what I would expect from even a smaller repertory theater!We had one theater in my town that was tacked onto a bigger theater in what may have been some kind of storage room previously. It had a maybe a 7ft wide screen and I am not sure if it even had 2 proper rows in there or something else - that thing was a mess

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yeah, that one case was the extreme. Every other screen in that theater is bigger than that at least, and one is decently large. I just learned from that to steer clear of auditorium #5.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Yeah, that one case was the extreme. Every other screen in that theater is bigger than that at least, and one is decently large. I just learned from that to steer clear of auditorium #5.

Great news! I can now start calling my theater room an auditorium.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I prefer digital projection as in my home cinema to any prints but prints from the camera negative. Digital projection in cinemas suffers from more or less poor blacks. Not so in my home. Better blacks than from prints.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I prefer digital projection as in my home cinema to any prints but prints from the camera negative. Digital projection in cinemas suffers from more or less poor blacks. Not so in my home. Better blacks than from prints.

It's amazing to me how some of the newer multi-plexes don't care about reflections back to the screen from the image itself, or trying to eliminate them. One of the plexes I go to even has a small lightened part of the screen from the corridor lights shining through the auditorium entry door glass!

 

[haineshisway]

I prefer digital projection as in my home cinema to any prints but prints from the camera negative. Digital projection in cinemas suffers from more or less poor blacks. Not so in my home. Better blacks than from prints.

I must say I don't understand a word of this Are you projecting film in your home? Or do you mean your digital projection at home yields somehow what to YOU are "truer blacks" that a print properly projected on a theater screen would? I mean, really?

 

[Robert Harris]

Not much film on film in NYC, unfortunately, so even living in a major city it can be difficult. A few weeks ago I was chatting with someone and I found myself saying, "There's not a single 35mm print of anything being shown this weekend in New York City." Never thought I'd ever have reason to say that. I was supposed to see Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" (a film I had never seen before) in 35mm about a month ago, but when I showed up at the theater, it turns out they hadn't been able to get the print they had been promised, so they showed the Blu-ray. Looked pretty good (again, small screen, so that helps), but not what I was expecting.

One does not need to restrict a Blu to a small screen. A quality Blu should look fine at 25 feet plusRAH

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One does not need to restrict a Blu to a small screen. A quality Blu should look fine at 25 feet plusRAH

I believe it was the Criterion disc they were showing. The screen was certainly smaller than 25 feet.

It didn't look bad. My complaint was more the part where they posted on their website that they were showing a 35mm print, and then when I got there, it was just the Blu-ray. I think there's sort of an intangible, magical quality that film has when projected, that I don't see or feel in the same way when I'm watching digital projection. Which is not to say that digital is worthless or that I don't like it, I think it has its place, and for new movies that are either shot digitally or finished digitally, I don't really have strong feelings about how I see it. But for movies shot on film, finished on film, that have always been film, my preference is to see them on 35mm.

 

[OliverK]

I prefer digital projection as in my home cinema to any prints but prints from the camera negative. Digital projection in cinemas suffers from more or less poor blacks. Not so in my home. Better blacks than from prints.

Not too hard indeed to have better blacks as digital projection in cinemas is, with the exception of the newest Sony SXRD models, to an on/off contrast of about 2000:1. What makes things even worse imo are regulations that demand for cinema owners to further raise that black levels with illuminated exit signs, at least where I live.

 

[OliverK]

I believe it was the Criterion disc they were showing. The screen was certainly smaller than 25 feet. It didn't look bad. My complaint was more the part where they posted on their website that they were showing a 35mm print, and then when I got there, it was just the Blu-ray. I think there's sort of an intangible, magical quality that film has when projected, that I don't see or feel in the same way when I'm watching digital projection. Which is not to say that digital is worthless or that I don't like it, I think it has its place, and for new movies that are either shot digitally or finished digitally, I don't really have strong feelings about how I see it. But for movies shot on film, finished on film, that have always been film, my preference is to see them on 35mm.

It is the difference between going to watch a movie and watching a movie in a particular version.There are numerous Blu-rays that would look very good when projected in a movie theater and this is even more true for black and white movies that do not suffer from the reduced 960 x 540 color resolution of the Blu-ray format.Still I may have that particular version at home already and would likely not want to attend a screening of the same disc in a commercial theater.

 

[ScottHM]

But digital just, for me, seems lifeless - it's all there, all of it, but it isn't tangible, it has no texture. It's a bunch of numbers.

This reminds me so much of complaints in the early days of CDs. Of course, there are still those who listen to their music from vinyl LPs.

---------------

 

[Dr Griffin]

This reminds me so much of complaints in the early days of CDs. Of course, there are still those who listen to their music from vinyl LPs.

---------------

Some of those early CDs sound awful today, compared to the newer releases of the same music improved by advancing technology. 'You get what you pay for' will always be a good barometer for your expectations. A lot of these multiplexes are probably cheaping out on quality here and there. I know there are less THX certified theaters around than there use to be. Some of them that used to be, no longer are and I have to wonder why - money. Even THX now has several levels of certification. While one of the plexes I go to has Sony Digital 4K Projection, I am unimpressed with their sound system, which has no certification of any kind. I remember being blown away by the THX certified theater's sound systems. Sometimes advancements in technology can only go as far as the willingness to spend. I would gladly spend more, knowing that the theater was presenting in the best way possible, but a lot of us outside huge metropolitan areas just don't have the choice.

 

[Wayne_j]

Considering that my main TV is currently a 43" 720p plasma, I will gladly go see classic films on DCP that are from the same master as the Blu-ray.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I must say I don't understand a word of this Are you projecting film in your home? Or do you mean your digital projection at home yields somehow what to YOU are "truer blacks" that a print properly projected on a theater screen would? I mean, really?

My blacks at home from digital projection are blacker than any blacks from prints or DCPs in cinemas. I have better contrast than in any cinema as well, digital or analogue projection.

 

[haineshisway]

My blacks at home from digital projection are blacker than any blacks from prints or DCPs in cinemas. I have better contrast than in any cinema as well, digital or analogue projection.

I can't even respond to this. Heaven bless the Home Theatre Enthusiast.

 

[haineshisway]

This reminds me so much of complaints in the early days of CDs. Of course, there are still those who listen to their music from vinyl LPs.

---------------

In the early days of CD those complaints were accurate - they sounded horrible because they just slapped any old master onto a silver disc without doing any work. I remember when I first began working with one of the best mastering engineers in the world back in 1993 and my first thing was "How can we get this not to sound like crap - to have warmth and presence." And we worked really hard at it and occasionally achieved it, then it got better and better - today I would stack any of our CDs against any vinyl anywhere. So, maybe in some years, when someone actually understands digital projection they can at least approximate the "feel" of film.

 

[seangood79]

That was my feeling exactly seeing my favorite film, "2001: A Space Odyssey" on DCP vs. seeing it in 70mm. I've seen the DCP several times now on various size screens, and the 70mm print I saw of it a couple weeks ago was far superior.

I have not seen the DCP of 2001, but I know of it. It is a 70gb file in 2K. Naturally the 70mm would be far superior.
I have seen 4K DCPs of Lawrence and Sound of Music. Those files are well of 200gb, and while I will always prefer to watch these films in pristine 70mm, those DCPs were acceptable substitutes.
I hope you got your money back for watching a blu ray advertised as 35mm.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I hope you got your money back for watching a blu ray advertised as 35mm.

To the theater's credit, when I arrived at the box office, there was a note clearly posted that it would not be 35mm -- knowing that, I still made the choice to purchase a ticket.

But if they had tried to switch without saying anything, I might have asked then. But I think they did the right thing.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have not seen the DCP of 2001, but I know of it. It is a 70gb file in 2K. Naturally the 70mm would be far superior.
I have seen 4K DCPs of Lawrence and Sound of Music. Those files are well of 200gb, and while I will always prefer to watch these films in pristine 70mm, those DCPs were acceptable substitutes.

I've read two things online about DCP file sizes that I thought were interesting.. the first, that Warner compresses things a lot, just as they do with their Blu-rays - their file sizes are apparently the smallest in the business. The other thing I read, and I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt, is that some DCPs have had even smaller sizes than 70gb, some at perhaps even half that, where the projectionists suspected that studios converted the Blu-ray files to DCP format in order to be able to deliver a DCP instead of a disk. Who knows if either is true. But it would line up with my experience of being underwhelmed with classic films being presented on DCP.

I haven't seen the Lawrence DCP, but I'd expect it to look pretty good (I did see a few DCP trailers for the restoration recently, and those looked phenomenal). That's one movie that I'd jump to see on a truly large screen.