What is blurrier, cinema presentations 40-60 years ago or DVD?

[Warm Gun]

I've read that Blu-ray is sometimes sharper than what people would see with 35 mm film in many cinemas at the time. So how blurry were cinema presentations typically? Watching Kuroneko on DVD right now, I'm just wondering if I have it better or worse than cinema-goers in 1968.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

I've read that Blu-ray is sometimes sharper than what people would see with 35 mm film in many cinemas at the time. So how blurry were cinema presentations typically? Watching Kuroneko on DVD right now, I'm just wondering if I have it better or worse than cinema-goers in 1968.

Worse is the simple answer.

[CreasyBear]

Depended on the condition of a print. Even a well worn 35mm print would be sharper than a DVD, though it would have wear such as dirt, tears, etc.

Nothing matches a pristine 35mm or 70mm print. Nothing.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Depended on the condition of a print. Even a well worn 35mm print would be sharper than a DVD, though it would have wear such as dirt, tears, etc.

Nothing matches a pristine 35mm or 70mm print. Nothing.

But was most projection good enough to adequately present 35 mm film?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

But was most projection good enough to adequately present 35 mm film?

Yes.

[slumcat]

Projection skill of the theater can make all the difference in the world. Is it in focus? Is it brightness correct? etc. Is there other light reflecting on the screen.

I am very sorry to say that even with 35 mm projection, sometimes my blu ray experience has been better - even for modern films.

Case in point - The Lighthouse and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I saw both film projected.

The Lighthouse was blurry. The contrast was completely off. Tinker Tailor was so dark I literally couldn't see what was happening.

So yes, the 35 mm format is better than DVD. But is it being projected right? That's the big question.

PS: The reverse is also true. I saw J Edgar projected. And it looked absolutely beautiful. I think the blu ray was not able to really capture that.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by slumcat

Projection skill of the theater can make all the difference in the world. Is it in focus? Is it brightness correct? etc. Is there other light reflecting on the screen.

I am very sorry to say that even with 35 mm projection, sometimes my blu ray experience has been better - even for modern films.

Case in point - The Lighthouse and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I saw both film projected.

The Lighthouse was blurry. The contrast was completely off. Tinker Tailor was so dark I literally couldn't see what was happening.

So yes, the 35 mm format is better than DVD. But is it being projected right? That's the big question.

PS: The reverse is also true. I saw J Edgar projected. And it looked absolutely beautiful. I think the blu ray was not able to really capture that.

Were those even projected in 35mm? They're both digital films.

EDIT - Sorry, I assumed they were both digital. They were both shot on 35mm. Just ignore me.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Were those even projected in 35mm? They're both digital films.

The Lighthouse was shot on 35mm.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The Lighthouse was shot on 35mm.

I did not know that. I just assumed it was shot digitally. Thanks.

And so was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Damn, my apologies.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I did not know that. I just assumed it was shot digitally. Thanks.

And so was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Damn, my apologies.

Nothing to apologise for mate.

[AFFanAttic]

The last movie I saw projected on film was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at the Alamo Drafthouse. It looked stunning and was really impactful for my first viewing.
I watched again a few weeks later at the same theater, by that time only DCP 4K, and it was still good but noticeably a different experience. So obviously, watching at home in 4K still won't compare.
I can't say the film projection was blurrier at all but it does have a different quality and texture to it. It's what the director had more in mind for how he wanted it presented, and it shows. My 4K and blu-ray copies look great, but no they're not an improvement. Let alone a 480 resolution DVD yikes.

Of course it was a whoole lot easier to find bad film projection quality decades ago (jeez, even barely over one decade ago) because film projection was everywhere. But hopefully a competent cinema was easier to find for most people than not.

Just like there's a Regal cinema near me where the DCP has purple blotches and other issues because the manager doesn't care, is bad at her job, and hates her employees/customers. So watching at home, without color distortion or piss smell in the theater, is a better experience than that. But watching a digital projection at even a marginally better theater where some care and upkeep is taken is an even better experience.

[Lee A Stewart]

The dying of the light

https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebe...g-of-the-light

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by AFFanAttic

The last movie I saw projected on film was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at the Alamo Drafthouse. It looked stunning and was really impactful for my first viewing.
I watched again a few weeks later at the same theater, by that time only DCP 4K, and it was still good but noticeably a different experience. So obviously, watching at home in 4K still won't compare.
I can't say the film projection was blurrier at all but it does have a different quality and texture to it. It's what the director had more in mind for how he wanted it presented, and it shows. My 4K and blu-ray copies look great, but no they're not an improvement. Let alone a 480 resolution DVD yikes.

Of course it was a whoole lot easier to find bad film projection quality decades ago (jeez, even barely over one decade ago) because film projection was everywhere. But hopefully a competent cinema was easier to find for most people than not.

Just like there's a Regal cinema near me where the DCP has purple blotches and other issues because the manager doesn't care, is bad at her job, and hates her employees/customers. So watching at home, without color distortion or piss smell in the theater, is a better experience than that. But watching a digital projection at even a marginally better theater where some care and upkeep is taken is an even better experience.

I saw OUATIH at the Gateway Film Center in Columbus in 35mm and the thing that hit me the most was the sound of the film running through the projector. Damn near shed a tear. Also saw 2001 in 70mm there a few years ago. Stunning, to say the least. There's nothing like film projected properly on a gigantic screen.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The dying of the light

https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebe...g-of-the-light

My local chain has just installed new screens and they looked fantastic. It seems they have used the down time to upgrade every aspect (the decor was also brand new).

[AFFanAttic]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I saw OUATIH at the Gateway Film Center in Columbus in 35mm and the thing that hit me the most was the sound of the film running through the projector. Damn near shed a tear. Also saw 2001 in 70mm there a few years ago. Stunning, to say the least. There's nothing like film projected properly on a gigantic screen.

Yesss. I also saw 2001 in 70mm and it was a great experience.

I have to admit that some of the appeal is rooted in nostalgia, but that's not to downplay the actual visual differences or a well-founded preference for viewing a film in its original format.
I vividly remember being excited to see Wall•E at the theater via digital projection! A movie that was produced/shot digitally and it's not been converted to film? Golllly. Then just a few short years later, I casually ask a theater employee if all their projections are digital now and she replies like "yeah, sorry. :/ "

Now it's a bit of a special event to see a film projection. And in another answer to this thread's question -- If the movie was intended for film, it hardly ever feels like a downgrade or compromise.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Nothing matches a pristine 35mm or 70mm print. Nothing.

First of all, I agree with the above statement.

To that, I will add that the expertise of the projectionist cannot be overemphasised.

When I lived in Portland, watching a movie at Cinema 21 was always a huge deal because IIRC they were the last theater still using union projectionists. It meant the projection was always pristine, and it was beautiful to behold, none of the commercial theaters could come close (this was in the pre-digital days). The commercial theaters would also frequently fail to use the required amount of light in their projectors, resulting in a dim picture.

The truth is, most non-union projectionists were either not properly trained or just didn't give a rat's behind, and the result was a projection that was hardly ever properly focused and sometimes very noticeably out-of-focus.

Many of the repertory houses in Los Angeles could also be counted on to have very high standards when it came to the proper projection of movies, which would typically be in sharp focus and with projectors using the required amount of light. The Arclight theaters, for example, always managed to make every movie look amazing.

When projected properly, a 35mm or 70mm print should look as sharp and detailed as anything you could see IRL.

[Jay H.]

I was 8 years-old forty years ago, so I don't remember how sharp film prints looked in the cinema.

[Lee A Stewart]

Film is Analog and subject to MTF: Modulation Transfer Function. This means that when making prints - specifically 35mm prints each time you step down from the Original Camera Negative you lose resolution. Not color space - just resolution. So it goes:

OCN to Interpositive to Internegative to Release Print.

Most 70mm prints were struck directly from the OCN back in the 1960's. That's why the OCNs from many movies shot in 65mm were in such bad shape.

Keep in mind that though the OCN itself has a max resolution rating from Kodak or Fuji, it is impossible to reach it due to the camera lens.

The biggest problem with film projection is keeping the 35mm frame perfectly flat against the film gate. If it isn't then the projected images will suffer. This is why IMAX created a vacuum system to make sure their frames were 100% flat against the film gate.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

But was most projection good enough to adequately present 35 mm film?

Absolutely.

16mm is also far superior to DVD with regards to clarity and 'resolution'. Films like The Hurt Locker and The Evil Dead were shot on 16mm.

Anyone who has a projection setup at home, can testify to how bad DVD looks when projected on a big screen, compared to a projection of a film print, even a non-pristine print.

[AutocorrectB]

Older film was not usually pristine looking, but that was part of its charm.