[opendtv] Re: 70th Anniversary Presentation of the Wizard of Oz
- From: Cliff Benham <flyback1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Steve Dichter <stevetek@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:44:05 -0400
Editorial comment:
I think in reality it won't matter if what's written below doesn't open
any eyes, because there's just not much to be seen in a *digital* movie
theater anyway.
Here are various <edited> comments from OpenDTV, OldVTRs, AMPEXBackroom
and individuals:
Come to the Detroit area to see a real film print of OZ in November:
http://redfordtheatre.com/movie/
zczc
I'll preface this by saying that I do not know what sort of projector
was used for the presentation I attended at the Regal Bella Bottega in
Redmond, WA, but I have seen 4k projection before, and although I have
not been especially impressed by 4k, it was miles ahead of what I saw
tonight, which was abysmal: dim (correction: really, really dim),
lacking details, whacked-out contrast, with everything appearing to have
a fine mesh over the screen. In short: very sub-par. The image was
1.37-ish (not 16x9 as some had feared), and I calculated (using the
tiles in the drop ceiling as a reference) an actual image size of
roughly 17x23', which, all else being equal, should be fairly impressive.
My beef is this: Had this been properly presented (a strong qualifier
these days) on film -- even if it was just reissued old IB tech prints
in good shape -- the image quality would have been way, way better in
virtually every way, except, of course, there would have been some
dust/scratches on the film. After tonight, hundreds of thousands (I'm
guessing) of people will be talking with their friends tomorrow and
saying things like, "Yeah, I saw WIZARD OF OZ in the theatre in Hi-Def,
and it looked GREAT," when in reality, it probably looked somewhere in
the range of "adequate" to "cruddy" -- but hey, it's hi-def!
Just to make sure my eyes were not playing games with my brain, I left
auditorium 1 where WIZ was playing, went to #8 and watched parts of
[another movie] on film, and it looked much, much better than WIZ did
(especially in the brightness, color gradations, and contrast
departments), then popped over to #6 and watched part of [one more
movie] - similar deal, but less pronounced, especially in terms of
detail -- then into #4 which was also playing WIZ and where WIZ looked
just as cruddy as it did in #1.
I'm not judging presentations that others may have seen, but having seen
WIZ many times on film and seeing it tonight, I can say that tonight's
was BY FAR the worst presentation I have seen, but it was sure hyped by
TCM and it sure filled the theatres. (I've even seen it in 16mm on
college campuses where it looked better, and I'm not kidding.)
[NOTE: Good 16MM film has about 2000 lines of resolution per picture
height. More than 1080p!]
I was especially impressed by the salesmanship of Robert Osborne when he
announced that tonight we would be seeing the film looking "just like it
did in 1939." After I mopped up, I pondered how:
1. I was really enjoying the bare cement floors in the front part of the
theatre. That's old movie-palace flair!
2. The theatre didn't even have the capacity to properly mask off the
screen, never mind there were no curtains.
3. The mindless rock riff that repeated for 30 minutes before the show
was a nice, 1939-ish touch.
4. The movie itself really looked like garbage. I really doubt that
there was a single theatre in the country that had a picture that lousy
in 1939.
I attended a program at the Samuel Goldwyn Theatre ("The Academy") a
couple of weeks ago, and was taken by how the host for the evening spoke
of how the current state of digital cinema amounts to "the industry"
pushing something on the public that is merely "adequate," when at so
many other times in cinema's history the push was for something BETTER.
That really rang true with me tonight.
zczc
I agree with everything you are saying here. I think this was a big
letdown in terms of image quality for the most part. It was not as good
as a nice 35mm print. It's an awesome film, even in this format, but I
feel like if this is an example of "state of the art" that digital
cinema is a bill of goods that we don't want to buy.
True "high def" is real film, if you've got a good print.
A nice second place, imho, is blu-ray in a proper home system (1080p).
Significantly below that is what you get with digital projection in
virtually every theater that shows this format. From what I've read,
this is 1080i, which is less than what you get in a good home system.
A good real technicolor print would easily better what was seen in
theaters last night, of that I am convinced.
The film still totally wows even in this format, but don't think the wow
is the so-called "digital high def"--the wow was the film.
zczc
There has been ongoing chat about this event on the rec.arts.movies.tech
newsgroup. Here are the especially tasty bits:
> So....this screening did NOT use the spiffy new digital master?? >>
It's the new master. It's not 4k. Fathom is distributing a down-
rezed version to be projected on just-above-consumer-grade projectors
that are made for advertisement slides, not actual motion pictures.
In effect, you're seeing the same thing that you could get on the new
Blu-Ray. Not even film resolution.
<<Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm confused about the equipment,
though. Are theaters really allowed to participate in Fathom events
with that level of equipment? Fathom doesn't require them to have
higher-grade digital projectors? >>
It's the other way around. Fathom EXPECTS them to run it on that kind
of equipment.
Venues that actually care about what they're doing will upconvert the
signal for their 2k projectors...
...actually, strike that. Anyone who actually cares wouldn't be
connected with this nonsense.
zczc
at Regal Alderwood Stadium 7 - Lynwood, WA...
1. Got to the theater late (my fault) and had to sit in the front row
(almost a full house) so I had to look almost straight up to see the
screen. No theater should have seats that close.
2. The right side was out of focus.
3. The left side was out of register (convergence - or whatever the term
for colors not lining up with a movie.)
4. The picture was stretched/compressed.
5. The top and bottom were cut off.
I went to see a hi-def movie. If I hadn't been with 4 other people who
went just to see the movie I would have complained, got my money back
and left.
zczc
King of Prussia, PA...
It was fun seeing it on the big screen but the picture could have been a
lot better. The presentation was spoilt by a *Windows desktop* showing
up when the movie ended so what we got I'm sure is what we'll be buying
next week. An actual print would have knocked what we saw sideways and
I'm pretty positive the image last night won't be as great as what I'll
see next Tuesday on my 50".
zczc
My exact sentiments, right down to the *Windows desk top*.
Very, very poor presentation here. The image was very washed out, almost
like watching on a early generation LCD, and the colors were extremely
muted. IMHO, Oz should not look like it was redone in pastels!
Also, there was a very odd screen door effect. When my wife, who does
not share my obsession with picture and sound quality, makes the same
observations unprompted, you know that they dropped the ball on this one.
I am quite curious how this was actually presented in terms of the
equipment. I have seen a few DLP projected films, and they looked pretty
good. This was a far cry from what those films looked like.
zczc
So did anyone else's satellite feed go out during the preshow "making
of"? They said they could see it on the computer screens in the booth
but nothing was showing on screen. They told us it was a problem at all
theaters showing it at that time (7PM Pacific).
zczc
In general terms, all else being equal, a properly-presented film
screening will outperform (by a significant amount) a properly-presented
digital screening. With the virtual loss of a manned projection booth
and/or a staff that gives a rip about what actually is presented on
screen, the film experience is extremely hit and miss, which is a shame.
A few years ago when any theatre worth its salt had a union
projectionist in the booth for all shows, things generally ran pretty
smoothly. Nowadays, the staff are so uninformed that, as an example,
when I walked in to a theatre recently before it opened for the day and
asked both employees on hand if they were using a film projector or a
digital projector, the best I could get was, "I dunno, but it's really
big." Remember folks: That's whose running most of your shows today, and
that's part of why we have bad focus, bad sound, bad masking, and no
curtains. A caring, informed employee is the exception, and when you
come across one, they are generally on the old side compared to the rest
of the staff. Steven Guttag was the union guy at the Uptown in
Washington, D.C., for many years, and he and his crew routinely ran the
best show in town -- without a platter! -- by manually changing reels
every [20] minutes.
Another example of the woeful state of film presentation today:
When the Cinerama in Seattle ran a 35mm print of ROBIN HOOD (1938
version) a few years ago, they only were willing to pay to have a
projectionist for the weekend shows. ROBIN HOOD is 1.37. All the
previews that ran before ROBIN HOOD were 1.85. Jim Thuoey, the union guy
who was hired for weekend shows, was totally able to adjust all the
masking, change lenses, etc., and do the show "right," but he was under
strict management orders to "set the show up for the staff during the
week," meaning that he could not have any automation or changes in place
that would require an actual thinking person beyond just pushing the
"start" button. Thus, all the 1.85 previews were shown quasi-letterboxed
within the 1.37 frame, with all the time codes and other junk that
usually is covered up by the 1.85 aperture plate out there in plain
sight on the screen. The AMC bean counters were basically saying to the
consumers: Hey, come on in to our theatre, and we'll put on a really
cruddy show for your 10 bucks because we're too cheap and lazy to
actually do it right, although for about $20 a show less profit, we
could really do a proper presentation.
Point being: Film has a bad name, but it isn't really, IMO, because of
the medium, but because of the shoddy presentation. (Prints are made in
such high numbers today that QC has gone out the window, too, but I'm
not going to get into that!)
Back to digital: The emerging standard for digital is 4k, but most
theatres that have digital are sitting at 2k, which (even for digital)
is woefully inadequate. My experience is that 4k can look *okay/decent*
on a smallish multiplex screen, i.e., 8 or 9 feet tall, and I'm talking
'live action' movies here. For computer animation, I think that digital
is actually a good way to go. After all, "it" was actually created on a
computer -- digitally. I have yet to see a 4k presentation that was
anything beyond passable. I would agree with the statement: 4k
resolution approaches that of film. Not exceeds. Not equals. Approaches.
And resolution is only a small part of the overall picture. Digital
projection works from a set number of colors. Film is essentially
unlimited. Film also can produce a stunning array of subtle gradations
within shadows. (Digital struggles with shadow detail.) I recently saw a
1957 IB Technicolor print of FUNNY FACE, and I was amazed at how all the
"dark stuff" in this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI0ZHQON_IQ
was actually not just a bunch of black and gray "blobs," but had weave
and detail, and how the black sweater was not just one shade of black,
but a bunch of subtle shadings, and Astaire's shirt was a whole bunch of
grays, depending on just how the light was hitting the material at any
given time. Digital can't do that. Not Even 4k.
Digital tends to have contrast issues. I've also yet to see a digital
presentation where I didn't feel like my eyes couldn't quite target the
level of detail I was used to seeing on film.
One more devilish little problem with FILM today is that almost all
films go through a digital editing phase. This, combined with the
enormous amount of prints that have to be struck for a given title, at
least partially accounts for what I call the "fluorescent light" colors
of so many "color" films today. Just last Friday, I saw a chintzy,
Hong-Kong-made Kung Fu movie at the Cinerama in Portland, in a print
from 1983, and the colors were vibrant and bright and full, and it
looked excellent. (It was this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LTa...rom=PL&index=4 )
I walked upstairs to Cinema 2 and saw part of "World's Greatest Dad,"
and thought that the color was gawdawful by comparison. Similary, I
recently attended a roundtable program with a bunch of well-known
cinematographers, and one of them said that they had recently finished a
small-budget film that was shot in Panavision but was edited by hand,
and the print that was used at the premiere was struck from the hand-cut
negative, and everybody was talking about how great the picture quality
was. "None of the young film guys, who are so into computer editing at
this film festival, had ever seen a picture that didn't go through a
digital internegative step. It was a real eye-opener for them."
Earlier this year, I saw VERTIGO in two presentations, just a few months
apart: 1 was in 70mm on a 26' tall screen. The other was in 4k on an 8'
tall screen. The 4k on a small screen looked "okay." The 70mm on a huge
screen? WOW! (Of course, 50 people were at the 70mm screening, and the
"hi-def" screening was a sell-out. Gotta love those buzzwords!)
In general terms, if you see something in 4k on a smallish screen, it's
probably okay. Avoid 2k. A list of theatres with Sony 4k machines can be
found here:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-4KTheatreLocations.shtml
I see you are in the UK. When you have the chance, drive to Bradford and
check out something in 70mm and report back.
In the 1950s, when cinemas were being killed off by home entertainment
(TV), Cinerama came along as the answer, which then sparked CinemaScope,
VistaVision, Todd-AO, and other large-format and/or stereo sound
formats. Today, we are in a similar situation, and the studios are
giving something that we can pretty much get....at home? That makes zero
sense to me. Look at how many people commented on the Oz thing with:
It's basically what I can get at home. And it's better at home! AMC,
Regal, and the like -- plus all the movie studios -- all DESERVE to go
out of business, IMO. "You're staying at home because what we offer is
crap. Well, now we offer new digital crap -- ooooooooooohhhhh -- isn't
it wonderful? How about a $4 soda with that? We love our customers, and
it shows."
The whole digital cinema thing strikes me as being very similar to the
analog/digital debate in sound. If you are listening to a WELL-MADE and
WELL-PRESENTED vinyl album cut from an analogue master, all that digital
stuff doesn't really matter, does it? Same is true of film. I would put
that 1957 print of FUNNY FACE up against anything that has been released
new to theatres in the last 10 years, and I would win. How sad is that?
I'm also a realist, and realize that sometime in the not-too-distant
future, movies are going to be digital, period.
zczc
This presentation was advertised in my area at AMC theater chains, and
it was released through Fathom Events.
I know for a fact that our local AMC theaters simply use big multimedia
projectors for digital projection, and they all have terrible
brightness, and come complete with digital keystone correction
artifacts. These projectors are used mainly for preshow advertisements,
and the film presentations look very many times better. I know the
release in my area was shown on these sub-par digital systems, so that's
probably what you saw.
To me, anything less than a very high end DLP projector at full 4K (or
maybe sometimes 2K) resolution, mounted on a xenon arc lamphouse
properly matched to the theater will look completely terrible compared
to 35mm film on a well maintained system.
If I can see pixels, I don't want to see the movie.
I too am surprised that such a classic film would be degraded to such
quality for a so called "restored" re-release. I would much prefer an
original theatrical release print to anything digital. I can only
imagine what the color would be like on a fade-free original Technicolor
print of that film.
So far, I have only seen one good digital presentation, and it was at
the Cinerama dome around LA. They use the DLP system described above,
and it was the only thing I have seen that truly looked better than film.
zczc
Sounds like the experience of "Oz" may be a playback problem. Who knows
what file the Windows machine was playing and the projector may be a
cheap unit.
zczc end and carriage return.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
