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

[benbess]

Originally Posted by 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."

+1

Love this post! Very informative, perceptive, and well written!+++

Thanks for this gary rc

[ambientcafe]

Originally Posted by 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."

+2....the best post on this thread so far! Indeed, t's all about the immersion factor....and IMAX doesn't cut it as far as a medium for displaying blockbuster scope films, as it commonly displays a cropped & letterboxed version of the original frame. Sigh...to go back in time just to experience the incomparable awesomeness of a 3-panel Cinerama film again....

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

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

Yeah I dont have a front projector. Most I have seen in my price range (below 10k) dont impress me.I can wait a few years.I want a killer picture not just a decent big one.

[ascendedcobra]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

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...

Yeah like I said the film itself has more resolution no doubt,but it has to be projected through the theater and blown up on a giant screen. The film may have many times the resolution of bluray. Guess what it also will have many times greater resolution than what is displayed on the movie screen.Also the bigger the screen the more resolution it will need to produce the same result.All that matters is the end result,and with a good flat screen,bluray player and a top notch transfer the results are stellar.Many like me will find their local cinemas struggling to keep up.

[MiLifeizaMovie]

blu ray and theatrical viewings to me are 2 different experiences.
i dont think their competing their both great in their own arenas

[MiLifeizaMovie]

what i mean is their 2 different ways to watch movies so c it in theaters for the real deal and on bd for jump off the screen comfy in ur home type a thing i luv movies yump n dankeroo

[Tom-Renoir]

Originally Posted by ambientcafe

+2....the best post on this thread so far! Indeed, t's all about the immersion factor....and IMAX doesn't cut it as far as a medium for displaying blockbuster scope films, as it commonly displays a cropped & letterboxed version of the original frame. Sigh...to go back in time just to experience the incomparable awesomeness of a 3-panel Cinerama film again....

You don't need to go back in time; just come to Bradford! That's what me and countless others from all over the world do each year. They show This is Cinerama there quite regularly but the Widescreen Weekend festival is what it's all about. How the West Was Won was shown digitally this year though, which was disappointing. Still got to see some rare recovered footage of a Russian cinerama film though, completely mind-blowing stuff. It's not really possible to explain how ridiculously sublime and unique a cinerama film is.

[kndy]

Also, it depends on how good are your eyes and I think theater experience has much to do with it as well.

Fortunately, we have a newer theater with stadium seating that replaced our other one that had messed up screens (gang bang graffiti that had been painted over or something), bad seats, dirty, etc. Not as great as sound setup as our newer theater.

But I'm spoiled with watching at home though...I like the ability to pause and go to the bathroom, rewind when I missed a certain dialogue, eating pizza, lumpia or whatever during the film instead of overpriced popcorn and of course, not having to worry about the other negative things that come with the theater. Hehe...

So, even though a theater may have more expensive equipment and better PQ, it's all about the experience.

BUT... I do enjoy the excitement and gasps of a theater. I remember when "Rocky IV" was in theater and everyone jumped up to support Rocky at the end and the same for Superman during "Superman II". Hearing all the crying and sniffles during "Titanic". Hearing people roar during "Die Hard" during the "yippie-kai-yay". And that's why I enjoyed the "SIN CITY" Blu-ray when it included that audio track with the ambiance of the theater and everyone gasping and reacting to a scene.

But then again, I'm sure my parents and their friends would say that their experience at a drive-in was much better than a theater back in the 60's or 70's for other reasons than watching the film.

[Duffy12]

From the blu-ray.com Blu-ray review of I Am Legend:

"Warner Brother's effort for their Blu-ray release of I Am Legend is perhaps their best yet, providing viewers with a stunning image quality that is certainly befitting the film. I cannot believe how much better this image looks than the one I saw in theaters. There it was dank, drab, almost colorless. The move from the local theater's presentation to the one at home on Blu-ray is almost like jumping from VHS to 1080p high definition. I really enjoyed this film in theaters, paying close attention, and I am noticing an incredible amount of nuances in the background details I missed in theaters, and obviously at a mere 65”, my screen is dwarfed by that in the local multiplex. Whether the print was poor or the theater projected using substandard equipment (my guess would be a bit of each), the image I saw today was a revelation, one definitely benefitting from the razor-sharp resolution and clarity only Blu-ray offers for home viewing.

Unlike those I saw in theaters, colors are rich and vibrant on the Blu-ray. The fire engine red on the Mustang Neville drives at the beginning of the film is marvelously reproduced. Detail in every single shot of the film is strikingly high and real. Black levels are fantastic, producing a deep and dark image, when appropriate, that adds another level of dread to the already frightening proceedings. There is a fine amount of grain visible in certain dark shots, notably those lit only by the light on Neville's M4. The image often presents contrasting light and dark scenes, moving from dark, lifeless interiors or nighttime shots, to scenes filmed in broad daylight. I Am Legend is one more item to add to my list of why I believe Blu-ray is making traditional movie theaters a thing of the past for me. I've been waiting for this movie to hit Blu-ray since the credits rolled at the theater, and the transfer to the format is exemplary."

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/I-Am-Legend-Blu-ray-Review/670/

This is also what I have been noticing on my Blu-rays and DVDs. I guess that the local theaters that I have been watching these at have not been doing their job properly at showing them.

.

[Penton-Man]

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". It doesnt seem to matter if the movie in question was 70 yrs old. What kind of crappy displays are they watching the movies on? There is no way in hell 2001,the Searchers or Wizard of Oz looked even half as good as they look on blu. I saw a lot of movies growing up in the 70s,80, & 90s and they all look better on blu than they ever did at the movies. 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?

There are *advantages* of 35mm. film theatrical projection compared to Blu-ray but, resolution is not one them.

The two primary *advantages* as I see it, are these………….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ic#post1077394

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

There are *advantages* of 35mm. film theatrical projection compared to Blu-ray but, resolution is not one them.

Reason being if you read the landmark study on this issue
(click on # 149 here………
http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp...ce=Ch%20SG%206)

^ You’ll note that the objective MTF measurements of release prints (which you guys see in your local Multiplex) essentially measured at only about 1000 lines/picture height.

Even lower was the subjective assessment of these release prints under real world conditions by at least 7 expert observers in movie theaters with “state-of-the art" projection in the following cities…..L.A., N.Y.C., Orlando, Montreal, Paris and Milan which came in at between a high of 875 lines/PH to a low of 750 lines/PH.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Reason being if you read the landmark study on this issue
(click on # 149 here………
http://www.itu.int/md/meetingdoc.asp...ce=Ch%20SG%206)

I forgot that the above link ^ is password protected……….try the following link for the pdf of the study, which is in the public domain and should be accessible to all –
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

[Fighter]

I'll take my home BD setup over the cinema anyday

[Deciazulado]

The other day I was in a famous theater near Penton Place, where they were doing image tech demostrations and in between picture showings they projected the RP-40 test film to focus the projector. I was as usual, sitting on my 50+ degree wide angle of view seat (meaning I was closer to the screen than 90% of the patrons) and you could see that the maximum resolving power on screen from a test piece of film that has 64% MTF contrast at 80 c/mm (which is 1812 vertical lines for the 1.85 format) was only 1280 vertical lines. I emphasize, 64% MTF contrast at 80 c/mm (compare that to what a real life pictorial negative, or 4th generation theatrical release print MTF is courtesy Penton's link) gave only 1280 lines, and you'll see why 1080p is no chopped liver.

[Nielsb90]

I agree with the OP.. Lots of movies look very sharp and good in the theater but when I watch the movie on BD the movie seems much, much more colorful..

[Lincoln6Echo]

Found this thread in a list below a BD.com film entry and I thought I'd like to share my experience. First of all, back in the '90s, I used to go to the theater all the time. This was back in the VHS and early DVD days. But once I got DVDs in late 2001, my theater going experience dropped off. My last spree theater experience was LotR-TTT in Dec. 2002. I've only been to the theater twice since then. For Tom Cruise's "Valkyrie" and Daniel Day-Lewis' "Lincoln". Both of these were at a local AMC/Kerasote theater that had decent, but not great projection. One of the main reasons why I quit going is that I find that I can get a more enjoyable and higher quality viewing experience at home, even back in the days of DVD.

I have had 3 HDTVs since 2007. A 42" LCD, a 46" plasma, and a 51" plasma. I have used nothing but Oppo players, first an Oppo HDV-183, then an Oppo BDP-83, and now an Oppo BDP-103. I find that I can get a more consistent viewing and listening experience out of my home set-up that I can by taking a chance at what I might find a the theater.

We're currently getting a new theater built in town from what used to be a locally owned grocery store. The first film they're supposed to be ready for is Star Wars. Don't know if I'll try to go see it there or not, or just wait for the BD in I assume May, 2016. Right? December theatrical release...make good sense to release the BD on May 4th, right?

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

Found this thread in a list below a BD.com film entry and I thought I'd like to share my experience. First of all, back in the '90s, I used to go to the theater all the time. This was back in the VHS and early DVD days. But once I got DVDs in late 2001, my theater going experience dropped off. My last spree theater experience was LotR-TTT in Dec. 2002. I've only been to the theater twice since then. For Tom Cruise's "Valkyrie" and Daniel Day-Lewis' "Lincoln". Both of these were at a local AMC/Kerasote theater that had decent, but not great projection. One of the main reasons why I quit going is that I find that I can get a more enjoyable and higher quality viewing experience at home, even back in the days of DVD.

I have had 3 HDTVs since 2007. A 42" LCD, a 46" plasma, and a 51" plasma. I have used nothing but Oppo players, first an Oppo HDV-183, then an Oppo BDP-83, and now an Oppo BDP-103. I find that I can get a more consistent viewing and listening experience out of my home set-up that I can by taking a chance at what I might find a the theater.

We're currently getting a new theater built in town from what used to be a locally owned grocery store. The first film they're supposed to be ready for is Star Wars. Don't know if I'll try to go see it there or not, or just wait for the BD in I assume May, 2016. Right? December theatrical release...make good sense to release the BD on May 4th, right?

Theater to me is usually best, but not every theater is the same. A modern Regal with STADIUM seating should best most home setups IMO - at least for the current crop of digital movies where there is no generational loss. There is just something about seeing it on a giant screen - definitely a 55" is not going to compare, but even a 108" screen is just not the same experience IMO as a real move theater. Yet I've been to some Regal and AMC theaters that look like they haven't been updated since the 80's, in those cases a home showing might be best. Obviously a true IMAX showing would be best of all, but not every city has a real IMAX - most just have fake IMAX (still a nice theater, but not top of the line). Sadly, 70mm is so rare almost nobody can actually see them today except for special engagements.

Back in the 35mm days, I'm sure it varied quite a bit on the quality of the print. But it takes a damn good blu-ray to beat a 35mm showing - but as someone else noted, the blu-ray comes from the master - theatricals are from a print. So there is plenty of room for it to go both ways (i.e. not all blu-ray transfers are all that great, and a good print might beat a "bad" blu-ray).