Why do some professional reviewers still think PQ is best in the theater?

[Jeff Kleist]

None of my colors are jacked way up. I used CNet's settings for my TV. I've also gone through countless settings posted by members here that have had their sets professionally calibrated. I know the difference between over saturated, over-blown colors and a normal looking picture. My Blu-rays just seem so much sharper and clearer to me than any movie theater I've ever been to. I dunno...

Calibration is to your own home environment and lighting. Whiel those numbers are a good place to start, they're not accurate for your set and your room

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

I see your from Mi. Are you near Det? If so most of the movies I saw growing up in Det area. Your theaters on average arent even on par with what we have in Vegas. Here is an example for you I saw the Bourne Supremacy at Star gratiot in Roseville Mi when it came out. The same movie looked a lot more colorful,sharper and three dimensional on my lcd. Same thing for monsters vs aliens compaired to a theater in Ohio this year. Need another? I took my wife and daughter to Wizard of Oz 70th anniversary for the 1 night showing and it looked good (probably better than anyone saw it in 1939) yet 1 week later I see it look even better in my house on blu. Im not talking about screen size or even front projectors. Im talking about pure image quality.

I am pretty sure that was a satelite broadcast, not film.

[luwanda]

I havent been at cinemas for so long that i can't even remember when it was last time... got tired of the waiting outside to get a ticket, the waiting of pop corn bar etc, the prices (7.50 € the ticket, + 9.50€ popcorn +2cokes = wtf?)

And specially, the noise of the people, people kissing, eating making nasty noises, talking, laughing, screaming... that doesnt let me enjoy the movie at all.

So i used to go alone at strange hours to be alone and enjoy about the movies.

Then Bluray blessed me and i can enjoy the movies again!!

PS. oh and last but not least, i can't stand watching movies dubbed, i live in spain and even if the spanish dubs are one of the best (or so they say) i gotta watch the original version...

About the PQ... havent found any cinema that matches the BD in a good equipment, maybe its that all the cinemas in Madrid sucks!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

I understand that the actuall film from even a 70yr old movie may be technically sharper than even 1080p. That doesnt mean the projectors of the day could do the film justice.There is no way in hell anyone saw Wizard of Oz,or 2001 look as good back in the day as good as we see it now on blu. Thats all

In the case of Oz, you may be right.

However, 2001 was shot on 70mm film, which is essentially IMAX quality (isn't IMAX 70mm film shot sideways?) Those prints are easily 10x better than any BD presentation and truly shine when projected onto a large screen.

Sadly, the 70mm days are over as I can't find any theaters around here that show them. There is an arthouse theater in Columbia Heights that showed a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia, and while still a treat to watch on film, the screen was far too small to properly demonstrate what a 70mm experience could look like.

If you go to an IMAX showing (real IMAX, not converted 35mm movies) like the sequences in Dark Knight, you'll get an idea of what 70mm can look like. Times like these make me wish I was alive in the 1960's or 70's.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

I dont know how many times I've read a review of a bluray and the reviewer says something to the effect "we are finally seeing the movie the way it was presented in theaters".

Good to hear...THAT's the sign of a professional reviewer

[Jeff Kleist]

However, 2001 was shot on 70mm film, which is essentially IMAX quality (isn't IMAX 70mm film shot sideways?) Those prints are easily 10x better than any BD presentation and truly shine when projected onto a large screen.

IMAX is higher resolution than standard 70mm because of the sideways run, similar to how VistaVision works because it uses more of the negative space. 70mm kicks the pants off of anything else available. Hands down. Keep in mind that MANY films had 70mm prints run that were just enlargements like fake IMAX blows upconvert today. The difference is that they were doing it so that there was space on the print to run 6-track analog sound, which is the base of many of the 5.1 mixes we hear today.

Sadly, the 70mm days are over as I can't find any theaters around here that show them. There is an arthouse theater in Columbia Heights that showed a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia, and while still a treat to watch on film, the screen was far too small to properly demonstrate what a 70mm experience could look like.

Digital multitrack was the final nail, losing that mulitrack advantage combined with the bulky projectors and the need for large screens to get the benefit didn't sit well with the 90s small screen multiplex format, and many old 70mm houses were partitioned into multiple smaller theaters

So smaller screens+digital sound+nothing being made in 70mm=death

I do believe we are at the cusp of the summer blockbuster going to IMAX however. Batman Begins Yet Again will almost certainly be 100% IMAX if Nolan has anything to say about it.

[ambientcafe]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I am and always will be a proponent of theaters. I don't care what you have at home, nothing will match the quality of a well run theater, film or digital. Those of you that live in cities where there is still a well kept and operating 70mm theater, you are blessed. That said, there are many theaters where the owners do not even replace the bulbs when they are dull. If the theater has crappy sound and dull screens, don't go to it. Find out which theater in your area has the best picture and only go there. In my city, Little Rock, AR, most of the poorly run theaters have been replaced by the more updated type, and the ones left I refuse to go to. Although when United Artists was bought out by Regal, Regal stopped subsidizing our local 70mm theater and shut it down, and it was one of the few left in the county. I saw Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Fantasia, and many others on a 70mm screen, and it is amazing. Finally, the reason that most professional reviewer think PQ is better in the theater is that it is true. 100% true. Just go to a good theater.

+1!!....Altho I have a 140'' CIH setup with 1st row viewing at 9 ft., it pales in comparison to the sheer immersiveness of a large, up-to-date cinema. The vastly larger scale of an auditorium also enables an infinitely more expansive soundfield, giving a spacious, grand acoustic experience that home DSP programs cannot convincingly reproduce. As blessed we are to have hidef media & hardware in the home, there is no substitute for size!

Btw, 'LOA' better show up on Blu in 2010, or I'll be inconsolable (!)

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by singhcr

In the case of Oz, you may be right.

However, 2001 was shot on 70mm film, which is essentially IMAX quality (isn't IMAX 70mm film shot sideways?) Those prints are easily 10x better than any BD presentation and truly shine when projected onto a large screen.

Sadly, the 70mm days are over as I can't find any theaters around here that show them. There is an arthouse theater in Columbia Heights that showed a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia, and while still a treat to watch on film, the screen was far too small to properly demonstrate what a 70mm experience could look like.

If you go to an IMAX showing (real IMAX, not converted 35mm movies) like the sequences in Dark Knight, you'll get an idea of what 70mm can look like. Times like these make me wish I was alive in the 1960's or 70's.

There are a lot of theaters in cali that still have the really big screens.I admit that is the best way to watch an epic movie. It has been a long time since I went to a true IMAX movie.Now Im on a mission.
You really think people saw the Searchers look as good as the bluray? I have no doubt they got to see it on a really big screen. I also have no doubt the film itself has incredible resolution. What I do doubt however that they had the projector technology to resolve it. I am more refering to the quality of the picture not just a giant screen. Im sure projection technology has improved over the last 40-50+ years. Im sure a proper IMAX of today would blow away anything people saw in the 60s.

[Lincoln6Echo]

The problem I see with theater projections is that you never know what you're gonna get in terms of both lamp power and audio immersion.

In my local theater, which was built around 1977 or '78 has probably not gotten new projectors but maybe a couple of times since, if that. I remember that because I first saw Star Wars in the old "downtown" theater (with the extended triangle marquee thing), and then saw it again in the newly built one a little while later. So I'm thinking the second time must of been the '78 re-release of Star Wars. I was only 3 or 4 at the time, so forgive me)

But anyway, my point is that unless the projectors are state-of-the-art, and likewise with the audio system, it's better to just wait for the Blu-ray and watch the films at home in your own home theater. Did it for years with just standard DVD, and now with Blu-ray, I see no need to go to the theaters. Hell, I've only been to the theater like once since LOTR:TTT. And that was to see Tom Cruise's "Valkryie" which I thought was a major disappointment, for myself who usually loves war movies.

[Trogdor2010]

I think we lost a personal element with movies these days, not because we now have home theaters, but we taken the concept of movies, more towards a casual, not a special experience, there is always movies coming out every day and there is little fuss about it (Lets face it, alot of people weren't THAT excited to see something such as The dark knight, even though it's was extremely successful box office), but we don't look at it for the experience, but rather we watch alot of commercials about it to get us to see it. We also don't share the experience when we go there, we tend to go there as a place to "hang out" as if for mere escapism, people rarely if ever talk about what they see, not about it's meaning, it's prespective, or it's artistic intentions, just something to run 2 hours out of the world. It's sad really.

And this comes from the fact depending on their love of movies will depend the quality and care of their theater, those that love what they see will want their experience orchestrated to their intentions, doesn't go for all, but a videophilic movie theater wouldn't take less than optimal. There is a personal element with the theater, to be an experience for all, to be remembered, which is why my best experiences at a movie theater would be those of movies I'll remember (recent examples for me such as Ponyo and UP) rather than a typical viewing for say a popular science fiction movie (Star trek or District 9 for example), doesn't mean they are bad films (they may be good movies, which the examples are), but those tend to be preferred seeing once in a home theater, not a theater necessarily, which is where I become disapointed I spent 10 dollars on.

[wallendo]

I think a lot of people have just come to prefer the "flat screen digital look". Some videophiles may like this look, but movie-lovers want movies to look like movies and the only way to see that is on a big screen. There is no way that a digitized highly compressed digital file can look more film-like than the original film.

[Jeff Kleist]

I know I'm not alone among my peers to prefer DLP over everything else, specifically because it feels filmier.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by wallendo

I think a lot of people have just come to prefer the "flat screen digital look". Some videophiles may like this look, but movie-lovers want movies to look like movies and the only way to see that is on a big screen. There is no way that a digitized highly compressed digital file can look more film-like than the original film.

The problem of course bieng films are mostly edited digitally at 2k resolution, and are often compressed when sent out to digital cinemas (and second and third generation film prints don't look all that good either).

I agree cinemas, when done properly can blow away a home theater set-up. I just find it harder and harder justify driven 15 minutes there, 15 minutes back, watching 20 minutes of unrelated movie commercials before the film, and then getting an out of focus image, or poor sound, etc. Yes I know I could complain, but then I miss out on the film (which doesn't happen on a home theater), and when I have complained have simply been offered a refund, and they have done nothing to resolve the issue.

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by singhcr

In the case of Oz, you may be right.

However, 2001 was shot on 70mm film, which is essentially IMAX quality (isn't IMAX 70mm film shot sideways?) Those prints are easily 10x better than any BD presentation and truly shine when projected onto a large screen.

Sadly, the 70mm days are over as I can't find any theaters around here that show them. There is an arthouse theater in Columbia Heights that showed a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia, and while still a treat to watch on film, the screen was far too small to properly demonstrate what a 70mm experience could look like.

If you go to an IMAX showing (real IMAX, not converted 35mm movies) like the sequences in Dark Knight, you'll get an idea of what 70mm can look like. Times like these make me wish I was alive in the 1960's or 70's.

Also while 70mm may have 2-4x the resolution it has to fill a minimum 10-20x the screen size. Yes if you where to take your bluray player down to the theater and hook it up to a projector it would probably fall short of 35mm let alone 70mm. The thing is bluray is around 2k resolution and most of us are viewing on screens only 40-65" . Of course the image will look much sharper on our screens.Bluray is the big fish in the little pond of home theater.

[alphadec]

Rember when I did goto the cinema in the 70's & 80's the picture was amazing but since my local cinema now is all digital I think the picture there look like crap. So what are the talking about analog or digital, I prefer analog that means celioid. So BD is now not far from what we did have in pre-digital projection.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

Even if I go to the best theater in town (Las Vegas) and see the latest blockbuster the blu will blow it away.I know 35mm film has probably 2x the resolution as 1080 but 1080 on a 40-65" screen> than film on a 30 ft screen. Anyone else agree?

You've obviously never blown up one of your blu-rays on a '50 screen. Do that and then tell me what you think.

[YodasFootPowder]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Calibration is to your own home environment and lighting. Whiel those numbers are a good place to start, they're not accurate for your set and your room

Well, my settings are tweaked further upon there's. I did start at their settings and modify them.

I think my biggest problem with movie theaters isn't the projectors, it's the insane ticket prices these days. Unless I go before 4PM evening tickets are like $10 bucks a piece. Forget that. I'll just wait for the Blu-ray. LOL!

[garyrc]

. We all probably agree that some movies were meant to be an immersive experience, especially ones planned for, and made in, 70mm [e. g., 2001: a Space Odyssey, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 Todd-AO version), Ben-Hur, Baraka, etc.] If you move close enough to a home screen of any kind to simulate the size on your retinas of old fashioned 70 mm projection from downstairs, fairly close to a screen installed especially for 70mm -- perhaps 60 to 90 degrees wide -- then a Blu-ray image will look pretty bad compared to pristine 70 mm projection. IMO, in judging image size, it is only the size on the viewer's retinas that counts, although gestalt phenomena arising from the way the screen is placed and the theater's architecture can influence the impression of size. My friends and I estimated our viewing angle to be about 120 degrees on gigantic curved screen 85 feet across the chord of the arc, for 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70 mm in San Jose. It was sharp, clear, and hypnotic. In other viewings from further back, it was even more gorgeous, but less immersive. And yes, from every seat we tried in many viewings, we could clearly read the instructions on the Zero Gravity Toilet, although we couldn't finish reading it because the shot didn't last long enough


. Color: While the color of some home displays can be overdone compared to the more natural color of the best theatrical projection with the best prints, if the director wanted extremely vivid color, it was available. 70mm had the higest potential color intensity. There was a certain range of blue ..... two examples: When Ben-Hur puts his blue shawl over his head to pray just before the chariot race, and when Merriweather (dressed in a similar blue) enters a relatively dark room in the castle, the audience involuntarily intoned "aaaaaaaahhhh" .... these two blues seemed electric -- seemed to glow with an inner light.


. IMAX, when both filmed and presented in real FILM IMAX, is great, but there are three things wrong with it, IMO. 1) The native IMAX is not a shape that resembles the arc of vision (too square), and I don't think there is as much unwilling -- automatic -- suspension of disbelief as in my favorite (and the usual) 70mm aspect ratio of 2.2:1. 2) Believe it or not, it tends to be too dark compared to classic 70mm, with carbon arc, in Magna Corp. set-up theaters. 3) Double believe it or not, despite the bragging about the sound that IMAX does, it is not as dynamic as the sound in the best Magna & similar set-ups. Perhaps the old Altec and JBL(via Ampex & Todd-AO) speakers, with their wide wood surfaces to either side of the speakers (as well as being horn loaded) moved more air than the modern, smaller speakers, in the mid-bass. Of course they didn't have as much very, very low bass (from 40 Hz down to maybe 10 to 15 Hz as modern theatrical subwoofers, but we didn't miss it! I would put the dynamics of the thunderstorm, and the suggested earthquake sound -- in the theater, in 70 mm 6 channel -- in Ben-Hur up against any modern film sound, and I will always remember feeling the wind in the theater during those thunderclaps, from the 11th row.

. As to distractions and noise in the audience, it could happen, but usually didn't, in Road Show 70 mm -- people respected that this was a class act, and were prepared by a musical prelude (from the filmakers, not the theatre management), and lights that usually gradually faded down untill it seemed like you would be sucked into, or almost fall into, the curtains -- which then grandly opened, just before the film started. Mike Todd attempted, with some success, to ban ice in drinks, noise producing cand wrappers, during the showing of 80 Days, in 70 mm, on the grounds that "It would F**k up the stereo."

[Fighter]

I hate going to the movies....I prefer the blu home-viewing experience. The best PQ and AQ without the constant annoying banter of mindless idiots around me. I'll take my food and beverages over the over priced cinema refreshments any day.

Just because you're watching a film "on the big screen" doesn't make your experience any better. It's about the quality not the quantity.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by ascendedcobra

I know 35mm film has probably 2x the resolution as 1080 but 1080 on a 40-65" screen> than film on a 30 ft screen. Anyone else agree?

Not reading the whole thread, but just wanted to point out that film has about 6-8x the resolution of Blu-Ray depending on the film stock...

Digital projection in theaters is running 2k in most places, 4k in some. Film is the equivalent of 6-8k, so even theatrical digital projection can't compare to film (yet). And, of course, the resolution for film is much higher for 70mm and much, MUCH higher for IMAX .

So, yes, film will always look better than Blu-ray.

Now, there's newer technologies that can make Blu-ray look _different_ than film, and some people will perceive this as 'better'. Contrast and color details can be enhanced using techniques that didn't exist back then, so you might get a different quality of image that way, but you are still losing many times the resolution, even on 70 year old film. And I'm sure Blu-ray of an old movie will look better than any screening on film that would occur today. But if the studio did the same clean up, adjustments, color correction, etc. that they do for the Blu-ray on a brand new print and show it in a theater, the print will look FAR better than the Blu-ray.

Whether or not you can see the difference yourself (anyone, for that matter), is also a factor. Like people that can't hear the difference between an MP3 and a CD... Those that can't tell the difference can usually never be 'taught' to see the difference. For those that can tell the difference, there's no comparison. Those are the people I want reviewing Blu-ray releases... They know what a movie in a theater should look like, and they can tell how close the studio got with the BD...

It's like saying the 7.1 remix of a 70-yo mono film is better than it was originally. That's not true, it's _different_ than it was originally. You might like it better, but it's not actually 'better'. It's just different...