my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Teenagers don't care about blurry pictures as long as films are action packed!

Author Topic: Teenagers don't care about blurry pictures as long as films are action packed! Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-24-2005 01:03 PM                     Believe it or not, this is a quote from a book I am curently reading entitled "The Big Picture," which concerns the motion picture industry, including production, distribution and exhibition. This particular quote is attributed to an unnamed "multiplex owner." The thing I am not clear on (and perhaps the author doesn't know what he is talking about) is the following. The book states that since multiplexes now have one projectionist running multiple screens, occasionally an unattended projector may have a film get snagged and burnt by the projector lamp. As a preventative measure, the book claims, multiplex owners have their projectionists "slightly expand the gap between the gate that supports the film and the lamp. As a result of providing this margin of safety, flims are shown slightly out of focus." After this statement, the above mentioned "multiplex owner's" observation about teens not caring about blurry pictures was inserted. This same mystery man went on to say that "Efficiency requires trade-offs." Then the text continued on to say that this practice also entailed leaving lamps in so long that the picture eventually dims to near darkness, all in the name of saving money. Well, what is this "expanding the gap" crap? Has any one out there ever been "ordered" to do this? And, finally, do any of you buy this junk about having crappy presentations because of the supposed low expectations of teens?  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 07-24-2005 01:16 PM                    No, I have never heard of any widening the gap talk or do any of the things mentioned in the book. Even so why is it running out of focus. There is a thing called a focus knob.  |  IP: Logged Dieter Depypere Master Film Handler Posts: 343 From: Deutsch-Wagram, Lower Austria, Austria Registered: May 2005 posted 07-24-2005 01:46 PM                     Sorry that I say that but this is an absolute piece of crap. Why on Earth should I, the poor projectionist, show the film out of focus!? That's the same as if I should show the film without the xenon turned on!? Some guys do have ideas... They should sign up in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's most dumb idea... By the way, the audience (the youth belongs to the audience) is expecting a perfect show.  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-24-2005 01:50 PM                     Most kids don't care about the presentation because they're just there to do something. Edit: The moron who wrote that book doesn't have a clue. Increasing the gap by what...a couple mm? That's not going to really do a whole lot for the heat. And it IS possible to get a good focus out of most projectors so long as everything is aligned, no matter what the xenon is doing...  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-24-2005 02:11 PM                        I think people DO care about focus, they just don't complain about it unless it's severe. The guy writing that book clearly doesn't have a clue and the one theatre owner he talked to doesn't have one, either.  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 07-24-2005 02:51 PM                     Although, judging from the pictures I've seen in some multiplexes, you'd think what the guy said was true but there's really no truth to it. However, I agree that teens don't go to theatres to see movies but to be seen. Have you ever been to a high school football game? I'm sure many of the kids there don't even know who has the ball.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-24-2005 04:07 PM                     Wow, who was the author of that?  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-24-2005 04:26 PM                     Author wrote: As a preventative measure, the book claims, multiplex owners have their projectionists "slightly expand the gap between the gate that supports the film and the lamp." I believe that the author is talking about defocusing the lamp house to reduce the hot spot of heat which can burn the film. Surely this will not bother the audience who care little about flat lighting of the gate. If the screen image were to be out of focus that would be foolish. Many authors do a crash course in the subject they are writing about. The course usually consists of some questions asked of the knowledgible person. The author then quotes what is said in response. The context may not be what the responder thought. In this case "out of focus" with regard to lamp to gate distance and not screen image focus. KEN  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-24-2005 05:10 PM                     quote: Brad Miller Wow, who was the author of that? The author's name is Edward Jay Epstein. Being a fan of Godzilla movies, I found it amusing that he lists the Toho film studio in Japan as Tojo.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-24-2005 05:18 PM                        Ken, you are giving this author way more credit than the imbicile deserves. EVERYTHING he stated is a pile of crap. If he meant to say defocusing the lamp is done to keep the film from burning (a properly focused lamp BURNS film?), then that's what he should have said, not keeping the picture out of focus keeps the film from burning. If he didn't know shit from shineola about the business, then he should have researched it a little more than just asking one single person, and a multiplex owner at that, about what goes on in the booth. By doing a slipshod job, he winds up putting totally incorrect information in book form about how a theatre is run. His blanket condemnation of all teenagers as being mornons is as accurate as his statements about showing films out of focus. As easy as it is to lump teens into a single catagory and attribute a host of unflattering negatives to them, it's just a cheap form of prejudice. Come on....ALL teenagers would sit and watch a movie out of focus? I don't know any who would or who only want to see action titles and I am around them all the time. I run movies for them and they are exacting about quality as any of my older patrons. So this author needs to go back to Writing 101 and leave a serious tome about the theatre business to someone who actually knows what he's talking about AND knows how to write. And Robert, best thing you can do with that book is chuck it in the trash. Reading any more may just get your even more inaccurate information. The Big Picture....by The Big A-Hole.  |  IP: Logged Kevin Wale Expert Film Handler Posts: 167 From: Guymon, OK USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 07-24-2005 06:53 PM                     When I was a teen, I definately cared about focus. I, for the most part, stopped going to movies in the old theatre here because the screen was torn and had been taped back together, there were lines all over everywhere and the sound was still mono. From what I remember, prints were taken care of but the building and screen had gone to pot. I think the author meant just what he said... prolly adjusting the trap tension to the loosest setting, and even perhaps putting shims to pull the trap mount back. Result, floppy film through the gate and shakey and out of focus image. I'd almost bet money that is what the "multiplex owner" was describing to him and he just simplified it. All this thinking that the film would pass through the gate easier thus, suposedly, not snagging (the word that was used). I guess the owner feels that if the projectionist is not there for a brain or tail wrap, the loose gate will still allow the film to go through easier???? Why they don't just instead, inplement a walk around every 10 minutes or so policy to keep things in check is beyond me. 90% of brain wraps are due to a mishap on threadup anyway so a walk by after starting a round of shows and the guy should be able to see any mistakes he missed the first time anyway. I know my biggest mistakes are simply just walking away from the projector area too fast after starting a movie when things get rushed. Startup is more the issue for multiplexes, because of often having to get two or three movies started at 7 o'clock or whatever, than keeping a watch on things while the movies are running is. I think the whole thing here is that people are just buying theatres but don't really know how the biz works. How could an owner than knows what he is doing justify things like that if he really knew how the stuff worked? Just crazy. No wonder box office numbers are so far down....  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-24-2005 08:05 PM                     This author's statement begs the question. To say that "the projectionist" does anything to the projector implies that said "projectionist actually knows diddly squat about the projector. We all know that virtually nobody inside the booth of an average googolplex theater knows even the slightest thing about how to prevent burning the film... Let ALONE even CARE about film! Furthermore, he assumes that there is even a "projectionist" in the first place! We all know that the average googolplex theater uses managers instead of projectionists to save on payroll cost. This idiot probably hasn't even been inside a projection booth, much less a theater in 20 years!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-24-2005 09:11 PM                        Edward Jay Epstein is a moron.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-25-2005 10:13 AM                     Amusing. Reminds me of this thread from a few months ago.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 07-26-2005 05:13 PM                        Unlike the book Michael savaged (I've since seen it, and would say that if anything, his review is overly complimentary!), this one doesn't claim to be primarily about the technology. According to this review (link to Washington Post review of Epstein's book by Jonathan Yardley, originally published 27 Feb 2005), it mainly deals with the changing economics and marketing practices of Hollywood in the '90s and '00s. So I guess that projection is a side-issue, and certainly not something he's likely to have researched very carefully. So, without having read the book, I'd speculate that we have a classic case of a film writer who, to quote Dorothy Malone's character in The Big Sleep, 'affects a knowledge of antiques, but hasn't any' as far as technology is concerned. I could compile a pretty long list of books and articles that are OK, and some even quite good, until they try to make arguments based on technological issues and concepts their authors don't understand: at which point out spouts the bullcrap. The reason is that these guys all did English/history/economics/modern languages etc. etc. at college/university, and so technology to them means pressing the play button. Worrying about the shite they write too much is a quick way to an early grave, sadly. Randy's right: he probably hasn't been inside a projection booth in 20 years - if he ever has at all.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.