 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: "Intelligent, adult films continue to get made, but..." posted by clarkjohnsen on October 17, 2001 at 08:00:30:
Hi,
Hollywood ties up empty theaters trying to get their picture gross
up; which shuts out dozens of small movies. I got to the theater less and less; and I invest mightily in my home theater. A friend has already sworn off going to the theaters. I am not all that far behind him.
Follow Ups:
Theatres are where the creators of a movie intend you to see it. Movies are made for *audiences*, not for someone sitting on the sofa. They are socio-artistic events best appreciated when the screen dominates your vision. Go to theatres whenever you want to see *anything*. DO NOT WAIT FOR THE DVD!clark
nt
I only have a Sony TV, so maybe the HDTV crowd will disagree- but there is a huge qualitative difference between the resolution of movie film and any video source I've ever seen. This is not at all subtle or arguable. There are a multitude of visual details on a movie screen that are gone on the video screen. I consider video to be an impoverished experience compared to film, one where most of the information is gone.
I only go to theaters for movies that have a visual emphasis like sci-fi, action, horror etc... like Star Wars, Private Ryan, Aliens, etc..Some verbaly oriented films can be seen on home theatre without much loss of impact like Panic, Nurse Betty, Death of a Salesman, Remains of the Day, many others etc...
No doubt about that.HDTV is better, but the pros in the industry say they can always tell the difference between something (like a TV show episode) that's been shot on film vs. been shot on even the best commercial grade video.
And you have raised a good point about the theater vs. HT debate. The sound may be better at home; but the picture definitely isn't -- even if you have a $10,000 projector system.
There is no hard and fast number for pixel resolution of film. For 35 mm film, I have read effective pixel resolution is as high as 5000 by 3760, although I have also read that a projector may put out around 3500 by 2000. Roughly, then the range is about 7 million to 19 million pixels required to capture a 35 mm image.Now HDTV has around 2000 by 1000 pixels. And NTSC video is 720 by 480 pixels. In NTSC, a big chunk of the image is chopped off due to the different aspect angle, but in any case, optimistically, you are left with somewhere under 5% of the information. And HDTV, while quite a bit better, is still missing 3/4 of the visual resolution.
Not to mention that you can see hundreds of movies, maybe thousands, for the price of an HDTV.
Thanks for the info.The difference is bigger than I thought. BTW, when I wrote "HDTV is better" I meant that it was better than NTSC, not better than film. When I re-read the post, I could see how it might be interpreted as saying that HDTV is better than film. Not what I meant to say.
For all the reasons you mention, my "home theater" is a 12 year old 27" NEC TV set (pretty good, actually) and a VCR of approximately the same vintage.
When the TV dies (which will be a while since it doesn't get that much use) I'll have to figure out what to replace it with. Same with the VCR -- or if video rentals move to DVD.
Oh definitely, it is a huge difference. Video and film is too different experiences and to me projected film has far better resolution than any video source.Doug Schneider
Cell phones.Tom §.
Pagers.
.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
Let me list a "few" distractions which can make the theater going experience less than pleasant (no particular order):*cell phones
*babies crying (anywhere in the theater)
*people talking (inconsiderately, over dialogue)
*obnoxious teens (intentionally disrupting audience concentration, usually to impress their friends or dates)
*bad prints (occasionally, even on new releases)
*improper volume setting for type of film (too high or low)
*failure to turn down seating lights until movie is well under way
*gum, popcorn & cokes spilled on theater floors
*unexpected projector problems (rare, but it has happened)
*a) weak bladders (occasionally guilty of this myself; especially if I have the jumbo collosal size drink during the first quarter of the movie, but unlike the home-theater experience you can't pause the theatrical release film for a brief personal intermission)
*b) weak bladders (even if you like center seating as my wife and I do, you often have people stepping over your feet during the last 1/3 of the film in a rush to get out of the theater)
*general mischief & mayhem (this can be any of a plethora of occurances which can make the movie going experience a truly unique event, such as nauseating bad odors, belatedly finding gum in your seat or someone accidentally spilling their beverage on you)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not lobbying against theaters (i.e., although there are times when the lobby is the safest place to be!), but I think you're taking too hard a position against the home-theater experience, and it's just as relevent, IMHO!
Cheers,
AuPh
*
Now if stove pipe hats come back and Marge Simpson's style becomes the vogue, we're all in trouble! :o)AuPh
TOO DAMN LOUD.That may just be to compensate for
*cell phones
*babies crying (anywhere in the theater)
*people talking (inconsiderately, over dialogue)
*obnoxious teens (intentionally disrupting audience concentration, usually to impress their friends or dates)
For years now, the loudness of the soundtrack has been so irritating that I have to wear ear protection.
I respectfully suggest that it's not the loudness, but the digitalness.clark
"I respectfully suggest that it's not the loudness, but the digitalness."
--clarkClark,
I partially agree. Partially because sound levels at movie theaters have unquestionably increased. The decibel levels are absurd these days (and I say this as someone who edits film sound fx for a living).
However, when the jump was made to digital playback in movie theaters (circa Jurassic Park), I'll never forget how taken aback I was by the harshness of the sound. The sound became colder, harder, more mechanical, and the top end took on a razor blade edge. It just plain hurt (or at least offended) my ears as no movie sound had ever before.
It was so bad that for quite a while I could barely relate the steely sounding, "hissing" voices coming from the sound system with the human looking people on screen (I'm not kidding, it sometimes to effort to integrate the sound with picture for me).
I've since experienced fine sounding, smooth, rich digital playback in some movie theaters. But it sure was a sickening switch to begin with.
Rich H.
Ushers are almost obsolete these days. Understaffed multiplex theaters can't oversee audience behavior in umpteen small cinemas as in days when a theater was just one BIG venue. IMHO, volume has been raised to "overshout" noisey talkers, rowdy kids and crying babies whose parents are too inconsiderate to remove them to the lobby; this reduces the need for overworked theater employees to deal with customer complaints about other customers.Otherwise, why would volume also be raised on intimate dramas and comedies as is so frequently done with FX-heavy action films?
Food for thought.
AuPh
Hi,
loud is LOUD, and too many times when i got to theater it is LOOUUDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, after they turned it down, it is still not good sound; but digitalwhatsis is not what was causing my pain.
Now, if I really wanted to "yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" I would say, "not the 'digitalness' but the 'horniness'!"Someday, I'm going to take my SPL meter into the movies and settle this.
Undoubtedly, the digitalness has something to do with it.
Well, I think Dennis's point (it is "Dennis", right "late"?) is that a film that never makes theatrical release is, as the article says, being released to some non-broadcast TV net just drives the whole process in a bad direction. The theatrical audience gets narrower (and ultimately, smaller); the number of outlets continues to shrink. IOW, a "death spiral."Although I can't speak for him, I imagine Dennis would agree with you that theatrical releases are best seen in a big movie theatre, not in a "home theatre" (although I've debated you before about the degree to which being in a movie theatre full of strangers is a social experience. Yes, it's more social than being home alone in front of the toob; but that's not saying much.) The real issue is whether there is a choice.
Having said that, I have the good fortune to have one big, old-time movie theatre 2 blocks from my house and another 5-theatre complex that's a long walk or a 3-minute drive.
My "home theater" is a 13-year old 27 inch TV set and a VCR.
But I do have DirecTV.
Well I did use the phrase "socio-artistic," so I guess I'm guilty. But the truth is, a movie theatre full of strangers is a THEATRICAL experience and that's the very experience the creators of cinematic art want us to have.clark
I wouldn't push that conceit too far -- from the collection of posts here, that "intended experience" includes talking during the film, cell phones going off, your feet stuck to the floor with disgarded chewing gum and a sometimes screechy (and always too loud) sound system.I don't think the auteurs intended all of that.
I have to say that the DC film audiences apparently are pretty well-behaved if other inmates' comments are accurate. I've yet to hear a cell phone or a beeper go off or even talking during the film.
So I guess I should consider myself lucky.
But, you're right -- the scale of the film experience is what the director intended and you don't get that at home, no matter how good your HT system.
So, for some movies, where the scale is important, the theatre is a must, e.g. the Star Wars movies, SPR, Titanic, Out of Africa. OTOH, I don't think "You can count on me" would lose a thing on the small screen even though I saw it in a theater.
And now that I read that another Laura Linney flick is being released straight to "pay cable," I may have to add the Starz! package to my DirecTV subscription.
Hi Bruce,
yes, it's Dennis. Some weeks ago, I read an article in the WSJ. It was about how Hollywood forces theaters to show movies indefintely. They filmmakers desperately want to get the gross high enough to justify notice at the Oscars. This shuts out literally dozens of small movies; a few of which in earlier years would have been quite successful. The result is a nauseating predictability most years.
And most definitely I agree this is the beginning of a death spiral for theaters. No theater in Maine has a better sound system than what I have. The only one I go to actually has a very nice sound; but there is not much I want to go see. A couple years ago, Hollywood was hot; and I went to see movie after movie. But I think theaters must face the facts. I am not just a customer; I am a mortal enemy :)
I am not sure that's true anymore. I have to see the stats but movie companies are having record years and there are more movies released to theaters than ever before. As well, take a look around, there are more theater screens in a given city than ever before.Doug Schneider
Maybe in Canada, Doug. I dunno about the US. Just looking at my local movie page in the paper here in Wash, DC, it seems like there are lots of screens; but they all show the same things. The single-screen theater is having a hard time here; cineplexes are what's hot. In metro Washington a number of movie houses have closed recently; supposedly we're overbuilt.Might make for a good article, though!
there are fine cinemas in between. where i live (cambridge, ma) we're terribly lucky -- a world-class film archive (www.harvardfilmarchive.org) and an astonishingly well-curated repertory house (www.brattlefilm.org) are within walking distance, and a nine-screen landmark indie megaplex is two subway stops away. even in other areas, though, there is growing interest in somewhat offbeat film these days -- look at the commercial successes of a company like landmark.the real treasures, though, are outfits like the brattle -- theatres dedicated to film art, not film business. sure, it's a wacky rear-projection system, and a mono sound system, but the quality of the offerings make them worthy of my business. if you've got similar theatres in your area, it's worth paying them a visit. less annoying teenagers, too :o)
d.
Oh certainly, the single-screen theater is shrinking...but it sort of makes sense. It costs a lot to run a concession, have staff, have a projectionist, etc. Get more movies into the same place and you get economies of scale going. But the point is, there is actually more movies on more screens than ever before.Doug
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
