|
|
Author
|
Topic: What's wrong with this picture? Plenty
|
System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi
![](/ubbmembers/systemnotices.jpg)
Posts: 215
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 06-24-2011 02:40 PM
What's wrong with this picture? Plenty
Source: variety.com
quote: Memo to the movie industry: The first step toward recovery, as AA has taught the world, is admitting you have a problem. Well, you definitely have a problem: You are making a highly polished product, but that polish isn't making it to your customers. You see bright clear images in your screening rooms but many auds get murky, fuzzy pictures -- and, if they're watching 3D, they pay extra for it.
And, judging by the response to my last column, where I suggested that movie theaters need to make the same commitment to quality as the Apple Stores do, you haven't admitted it -- not all of you, at least. (Par is acknowledging the 3D brightness problem by sending out 2,000 digital prints of "Transformers 3" graded for twice the usual brightness of a 3D theater. But they can't go into all 3D theaters because some aren't bright enough.)
You already know you have this problem, by the way. You're just choosing not to do anything about it. Odds are, if you make movies, you're unhappy with what you see in civilian movie theaters.
There's dim projection, but I also hear stories of 3D pictures being shown with the left and right eyes flipped, and of improper framing, and of masks left off projectors, and all kinds of sound problems.
Maybe you read Terrence Malick's projection instructions for "The Tree of Life," which appeared on the Internet. Malick wrote: "With all the recent talk of 'darkier (sic), lousier' images, operators are asked that lamps are at 'proper standard (5400 Kelvin)' and that the 'foot Lambert level is at Standard 14.' " Having to ask projectionists to hit 14 foot Lamberts of brightness is like having to ask American motorists to drive to the right side of the road.
Not your fault, you say? You're collecting the checks, so it's your responsibility. The product you are selling isn't what you see in the studio screening room, or even what you send out. It's what the audience sees. It's as if you're bottling a fine Bordeaux but your consumers are being poured Two Buck Chuck.
If you're in exhibition, you're probably bristling at this. I got a bunch of emails from exhibs and NATO responding to my column. Most were either denial or hand-wringing. One message said "This is ridiculous -- everyone I know in the industry is trying their best to light up their screens and put their best foot forward." Another predicted a shakeout and consolidation, where only big chains would be able to upgrade.
Then there was this note from a single-screen theater owner in the Midwest: "I too have experienced many cruddy exhibitions in my moviegoing life. A horrendous experience at a movie theater was one of my inspirations for becoming an exhibitor. At my theater, we strive to give our audience the best possible exhibition that we can afford. And those last four words are key: 'that we can afford.'?"
He added that state-of-the-art upgrades are simply beyond his means.
"There is no doubt that the peak of the exhibition industry is over," he went on to say. "Costs are up (you should see my power bill), attendance is down, and it's increasingly difficult to get a jaded audience to make the effort to come to a theater. Certainly exhibitors hurt themselves with poor presentation, but to imply that the answer to our problems are huge investments in equipment and maintenance is to ignore the financial facts."
I'm not as pessimistic as that about theaters and exhibition. But box office has been flat for several years, despite 3D and Imax, and now there's talk about the need to "save" 3D. I happen to think 3D is worth saving, but even if it goes away tomorrow, you still have to find way to maintain quality all the way to your customers' eyes and ears.
Most of you, whether in production, distribution and exhibition, know this is a problem. A few of you are pushing for change. You need to push harder. The competition from television, home theater and the Internet is only growing fiercer. If you choose to do nothing, your audience will continue to drift into indifference -- and away from your theaters.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-29-2011 12:04 PM
I dunno Monte...the Boston Globe reported on a REAL problem that showed up as low light. None of that is in dispute.
Now some members and exhibitors have claimed that running 2D through the 3D lens IF SET UP PROPERLY is not such a big issue...BUT...
As I understand it, the image (in 2D through the 3D lens) will still be limited to a maximum pixel height of 858 or about a 11% reduction in pixels for FLAT movies...which will require scaling with visible artifacts (DCI compliance violation). The pixel overlay from the two lenses must be PERFECT in all parts of the screen (while in 2D mode) or resolution is reduced. I question if the alignment is that precise on installations (typical, not the one that was dialed in by the super tech that represents about 1% of the installers out there).
Then take into account that the whole imager is not being used, regardless so the available light to the machine (MAX 18,000 lumens) is further reduced to about half (because you are throwing away that much of the imager on the sides)...so you only have about 9000 lumens to work with. That compares to about 1800-3000 watts on any DLP (some DLPs are more efficient than others
Odds are, the Sony is going to be under spec with the 3D lens in if it was sized properly for 3D. The Sony definitely, on Flat, is going to have visible artifacts with its image and likely will have issues with Scope too. Furthermore, it blows the whole "4K" thing since with the 3D lens in, it can't do 4K (or even 2K, if you think about it).
While the Globe may have gotten some facts wrong (and, no doubt their sources were also wrong), it doesn't change the fact that Sony projection systems with 3D lenses in showing 2D is a compromise at best and will likely cause too much light suckage.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|