Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, “and if you don’t do it right, the machine will shut down on you.’’ The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn’t made and “audiences are getting shortchanged.
DRM has now made movies suck even at the theater. If I was a director, I'd be cheesed.
Since orange is the complementary color of blue, it's a no-brainer that it's used to add contrast whenever blue is involved.
Blue is a color omnipresent on earth - water is blue, the sky is blue. Also, on sunrise and sunset the sun's light gives everything an orange tint. The combination itself is the easiest for our eyes to tolerate as we can see it everyday. Other powerful alternatives would be red/green and yellow/purple, but these aren't so generic having limited applicability and are hard to bring in harmony (when trying to pick a harmonious color palette, almost all recipes exclude complementaries). And the reason for wanting complementary colors is because complements add contrast to your image, being the easiest technique you can use.
Even though you may be pissed about seeing blue/orange everywhere, the fact of the matter is that it's a working technique, also used by photographers.
Q. In your recent review of "Virus", you commented: "It didn't help that the print I saw was so underlit that often I could see hardly anything on the screen. Was that because the movie was filmed that way, or because the projector bulb was dimmed to extend its life span?"
A dirty secret is that movies are under-lit in most theaters. Films are produced with the intent that they be projected at the brightness of 16 foot-lamberts. Field research by Kodak found that they are often shown at 8-10 foot-lamberts, well under the SMPTE standard for brightness. To get theaters up to this and other standards, Kodak is introducing the Screencheck Experience program. The under-lighting of screens may be acceptable for a few movies--lest you see the entirety of their badness--but in general it unnecessarily degrades the theater experience. (Carl Donath, Rochester NY)
A. I've seen thousands of movies and I believe the Screencheck Experience program would only confirm that "Virus" was severely deprived of foot-lamberts when I saw it in a Chicago theater not a million miles from the Water Tower. Martin Scorsese, who travels with a light meter, once told me movies are projected at the correct brilliance in New York and Los Angeles, because that's where the filmmakers live, and they squawk. In a lot of other places, he said, the theaters turn down the juice to save on the replacement costs of expensive bulbs.
The sad thing is that the Boston-area AMC multiplexes included THX (and HPS-4000) certified theaters (but not all screens have the certs). Screen illumination is part of the THX TAP spec, I wonder if any of the AMC THX theaters are out of spec.
That would be an awesome thing to do. Call into question their certification, highlighting that they may intentionally be not swapping out the lenses. I wonder what the reaction at the top would be if they were to lose certification.
I've seen countless people happily watching horribly stretched 4:3 films on 16:9 screens. In fact, in the past 10 years it even was the norm (now at last all channels broadcast directly in 16:9). It's hardly surprising that movie-goers don't even see what's wrong in that case.
I'm a pretty picky movie goer. My biggest pet peeve is when a theater only dims the house lights rather than turning them all the way down; that can really wash out the image on the screen. I've complained about this in the past and was told it was for "safety concerns". I thought that's what the light strips in the aisles were for.
Anyhow, I can't imagine how bad it would look if they left the 3D lens on and still had the house lights on dim. If that ever happens to me I'll get up and leave for sure.
I asked a bunch of friends the other day if any of them really like 3D movies, and they all said "NO!". Why exactly we're seeing so many of them when we all seem to dislike them is beyond me.
I don't like them more than 2D movies but I also don't dislike them as much as a lot of people around here seem to. How to Train Your Dragon and Coraline come to mind as a couple movies that I really loved and particularly enjoyed the 3D aspect of. I would have still liked them if they had only been available in 2D but I probably wouldn't have paid to go see them in the theater. For most people the movie theater is the only place where they can watch 3D movies. I think that a big part of the reason that we're seeing so many of them is that 3D draws more people out to the theaters.
I truly believe 3D can be a massive plus for the theater experience. But there hasn't been a match of "good movie" and "good 3D" yet. Not outside of animation. DRIVE ANGRY had good 3D. PRIEST has good 3D. But they aren't good movies. THOR was a decent film with awful 3D.
A big part of it is experience, too. DRIVE ANGRY was the second 3D film for its director. PRIEST is like the millionth 3D film for its cinematographer.
The time will come. I'm sure of it. I just hope it comes while people still see 3D films.
My biggest problem with 3D movies is that although 3D means you're supposed to be seeing the action as real in front of you, they keep using weird camera lenses that have weird effect on the scene.
Take for example Thor 3D: most of the scenes involving wide shots are good if you take off the glasses, but if you put them on, the combination of 3D and the wide angle lens makes your brain think that you are watching small puppets, and not the intended "people next to huge rocks".
There are lots of bad 3D movies because of this, and I cant believe nobody complains about it. The only movies that seem to work in 3D are animated cartoons.
IMHO - 3D on an IMAX screen is a completely different experience. I'm fortunate to have an IMAX screen in my town and it's much better than the "standard" 3D films. I'm thinking it's due to 1) the bigger screen, and 2) the larger glasses. (seriously - the IMAX glasses are comically large). The movie fills your entire field of vision and you aren't as distracted by the edges of your field of vision.
"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." -- Pauline Kael, about the 1972 election, often misquoted as "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him."
I specifically chose to watch it in 2D but noticed one moment which might look impressive in 3D: the skeleton hand of Blackbeard reaching out of the whirling water. That's it.
I'm so glad we have an amazing local theater chain in Utah. They are innovating in every way from food to reserved seating (no 3 hour queues for new movies). In the unlikely event this became a problem, they are small enough and care enough to fix it.
In L.A. there's one local chain with reserved seating, Arclight. They check the sound and image for each screening too. It's a quality experience at a premium price, but I dislike the reserved seating. People cluster, which I don't like, so I often get up and move once the show has started.
Arclight is awesome. They are one of the few chains that actually truly care about the full "experience" of the theater. In addition to checking the sound and image (and actually knowing what they're checking for), they also don't run adverts before the film, which I appreciate.
No major chain in my area has reserved seating. I really don't understand why not, either. Having huge queues in theaters (and needing to queue therein) is a bad experience for all involved.
Well, to be fair, they may now. It has literally been years since I've visited a theater outside this group's control. I will drive 15 miles or more before I'll check the Cinemark two miles away.
My local cinema usually has reserved seating but not for early showings of big new films. I've always assumed that this is to encourage people to get in early so they can get a decent seat - with the added bonus that they have to sit through ~20 minutes of adverts.
If I buy a ticket with a reserved seat then I'll usually go in a few minutes after the advertised start time so that I miss most of the commercials.
Way back in the day, in the small town in Ireland I grew up in, reserved seating was the only kind of seating. It almost seemed like an excuse to hire extra people, so they could check your ticket and show you to your seat. Then, when the multiplex came in, revenue maximization was the goal, and reserved seating went away; probably helped with ad impressions too. Now, in London where I live, if I want to reserve a seat, I need to pay extra (e.g. VIP ticket in Vue cinemas), and get a marginally larger seat etc. (though still, no-one shows you to your seat unless it's a really big feature).
Its just one more thing that is driving me out of the theater. The food prices, the terrible lighting, the advertisements, oh the ads! All of these things make me want to stay at home with my big plasma display. Keep this up and theaters will die. :/
Movie theaters made sense when televisions were awful and people needed an air-conditioned escape from summer heat. A modern home is technologically comparable and environmentally superior to a theater. Additionally, theater technology is now well beyond the comprehension or appreciation most theater managers. I've gotten headaches from blown woofers and glitch-filled digital audio streams. Complaints typically result in blank stares.
The only theaters I go to these days are those showing third-run movies while serving pizza, burgers, and beer. :-)
I have to strongly disagree. The experience of watching a film in a movie theater is completely different than watching it at home, even with a high end home theater setup.
First of all, the vast majority of people can't even come close to replicate this "technological experience" of movie theater. The huge screen as well as the audio system absolutely do change how you experience a film, be it Avatar or 2001 or Metropolis (the last two of which I've only recently seen for the first time on the big screen, and even though I have a pretty huge TV, this was an entirely different experience).
But aside from the technology involved, a movie theater is a completely different environment than your living room, it is designed to keep you entirely focused. I find I am much more immersed in a movie when I see it in the cinema. Also, some movies are just made to be watched as part of a larger audience (e.g. I can't imagine I'd find Borat even remotely as funny as I did when I watched it in a small theater packed with a cheering crowd).
On a somewhat more esoteric note, I seem to remember a study that showed rear-projection (like on a TV) had a different impact on the brain than front-projection (like on a movie screen). I can't find anything about this now and it might've been complete bogus, but maybe someone else knows something about this...
I cannot agree; far too often, there's someone having a phone conversation or otherwise engaging in completely unrelated chat with their friends at my local cinema. There's nothing you can do about it. That's in addition to the cinema having the volume set too high, and having to pay extra to reserve seats so you can avoid the 25 minutes of ads and trailers that come up before the feature.
a movie theater is a completely different environment than your living room
This is true - my living room doesn't have somebody eating out of a loudly crackling popcorn bag, people talking to each other a few seats away, a dude behind me who accidentally dunts the seat every now and then when he crosses and uncrosses his legs, a dim slightly out-of-focus picture with the top chopped off because the projector hasn't been set up properly, or a woman updating facebook on her smartphone in my eyeshot every few minutes+.
Truly magical.
+okay, admittedly that's a distillation of annoying Cinema crap.
First of all, the vast majority of people can't even come close to replicate this "technological experience" of movie theater
Massively disagree. The huge screen is really not of great importance. Given a good-enough screen, quality audio is what sends the experience over the edge. I picked up fantastic NHT speakers and a variety of amplifiers for well under $1k. Surround sound adds nothing, while a center channel is crucial for dialog.
As for the environment, set your living room up however you please. I've never had anyone munching popcorn and nachos (!), talking to the characters, jingling their jewelery, or texting in my living room.
I agree about Borat, though a room of friends would have given the same experience.
3D movies are also awful, stressing your eyes and even producing headaches. It's also awful for people used to subtitles. In my country it's common practice for movies to be aired in English with subtitles. I couldn't think of a worse combination than subtitles and 3D projection - and movie theaters will rather prefer dubbed audio tracks in the future, which will totally ruin movies for me.
Digital projectors allow for super-sharp images, in combination with a short depth-of-field (for cool bokehs) it's all you need for 3D effects without giving you nausea, not to mention the images are pseudo-3D at best. To make matters worse, I went to the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and the 2D option wasn't available.
To paraphrase other people - 3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension; and it's getting shoved on people's throats, even if they don't like it.
I don't think 3D is entirely useless, it's just not used to its full potential in my mind. Explosions, space battles and what-have-you are nice and all, but when I saw Avatar the one scene that really blew me away was just a bunch of people sitting around and talking, with no camera movement whatsoever. It felt so real and intense.
I want to see some serious drama shot in 3D, I want to see the technology serve story and character.
(And yes, I am anxiously awaiting the local release of Werner Herzog's 3D cave documentary...)
DRM has now made movies suck even at the theater. If I was a director, I'd be cheesed.