deepest blue

which do you guys think has a better presentation? i saw freddy vs jason in theaters a few times and i clearly see the dvd being alot better in presentation..i especially thought about it yesterday when i went to go see 13 going on 30,when i saw heard how low the 80s music was that i planned on jamming too,mean girls also sounded surprisingly low,even for a teen flick in both theaters i saw it in and colors almost always look more vibrant on dvd..what do you guys think?

Randy Miller III

It really depends on the quality of the print and the competence of the projectionist. If you're not lucky, you'll get stuck with a dirty image that is off-center by a few inches...er, feet.

Another big factor is the sound quality. The last few movies I saw in theaters suffered from terrible, muffled sound, and it was hard to make out some of the dialogue. Add this on to ever-increasing ticket prices, and it's easy to see why I'm such a big fan of DVD.

Dazed

I went to see a film last year(cant remember which one) and the projector was off by several feet and was projecting part of the image on the wall.

Is it all computer controlled now or are there still projectionists for each screen ?

shawagg

Depends on the theater... From my experiance, the bigger chains have nice seats and such but skimp on the sound systems. The smaller independent theaters seem to do better around my neck of the woods. I say find a theater you like and go there to see your movies. You're dropping a 10 spot to watch it, no point in going to a bad screen.

obscurelabel

Some ramblings on projection:

Most of the mega-plex theaters have all of the projection rooms connected and have as few as possible people attending the projectors. The ideal is one, since a person is still needed to to a few things, I believe, but they go from theater to theater and don't stay with one movie from start to finish. This is why a problem (bad sound, wrong projection angle, etc.) can go unnoticed for a long time as there is no one watching besides the audience. There is no need for reel changes as the movies are now spliced into one enormous reel that is stored sideways on a giant metal platter; a prism rotates the image 90 degrees for projection. I believe that most of the projectors at these places are locked into just two ARs, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 ... in the old days (70s and 80s for me) there was actually a projectionist at every screen who had to do reel changes manually and make sure the lenses and ARs were ok ...

A lot of theaters will use the absolute minimum light sources for projection, these use a lot of power and are a major expense, so there is a lot of incentive to keep these at the less than optimal levels of brightness.

In the mid 80s I saw House of Wax in 3D at a regular suburban theater, it had been re-released in a format that allowed both left and right images to be stored on one strip of film (I believe by anamorphic squeezing). However, a special polarized lens had to be attached to the projector, which had to be done by a knowledgable projectionist, but with this simple change, very good 3D was possible from a single projector (the audience had to use glasses of course). Nowadays, I believe all of the lenses are locked down, which is why current 3D (like Spy Kids 3) is shown with the inferior blue/red technique, which doesn't require any projector change (not that it's possible, with the fixed in place lens).

Back in the silent days, films were shot by hand cranked cameras, and the frame per second rate, while it may not have varied much (say between 16 - 18 fps in 1918), it was variable, and the projectionist had to vary the playback speed of the projector to try to match the movie. In those days projectors had variable speed controls (now they are all locked in at 24fps). This led to projectionists bumping up the speed a bit to make the action look brisker (also possibly to get in more shows per day), with the camera people then speeding up their filming to compensate, which led to the original silent rates of about 16 frames per second gradually increasing, so that when a standard rate had to be determined because of sound, 24 frames per second was chosen, as this was the current average of the day.

Projection is pretty much a lost art outside of the specialty or art house theater.

OREOSpeedwagon

dvd presentation is definitely a lot better than the local theater. I prefer DVDs to theater though just because our theater sucks and it is more comfortable to watch them in my room.

Brian Shannon

Something of a loaded question

Ideally the commercial theater should be the best. Huge screen, lots of speakers, good equipment etc.

In the real world I hate going to a theater for far too many reasons to list here.

I prefer to watch in my own theater. I have total control over every aspect of the display and the quality of some of the recent discs is outstanding.

NaturalMystic79

Movies look alot better IMHO on my 32" Sony VVEga flatscreen than at the movie theaters. Also my Onkyo 5.1 system does the job well. I would rather watch a movie at my house than go to the theaters. Only problem is my room is very small so if I have more than 2-3 people it gets crowded and not everybody gets the best sound because the "sweet spot" on my HT is right in the middle with the best chair (where I usually sit)

pdjennings

DVD will always win in my book -- you don't have to put up with the OTHER PEOPLE that make theater-going absolute hell

JimRochester

When I saw Bringing Down the House (yes I know, but my date wanted to see it) the projection was off top to bottom. At the bottom of the screen there were several inches of the top of the movie.

steebo777

I usually prefer watching DVDs in my own theater, but for those huge epic films (LOTR, Star Wars, etc.) there is no doubt I have to see it in a theater. I drove 3 hours just to go see Attack of the Clones in one of the best theaters in Michigan. I know I will get riducled on here for that; it's all a preference though.

As long as you go to a theater that has quality audio/projection systems, there isn't too large of a problem. Theaters always turn down the bulbs power output, so I am used to that (I do the same in my theater, so why should expect more? ). There are occassions when a films presentation in a theater is below average, but that is when you go complain to the manager and get a free pass for a future feature.

wendersfan

For me, nothing will replace seeing a movie in a theater.

Since I tend to only see art films in a theater housed in a university art museum, my cinema experiences are uniformly excellent and perhaps out of the ordinary. The theater where I usually go has state of the art projection and sound. I'm probably not exaggerating when I say it's got to be one of the dozen best film theaters in the country.

Subgeniusguy

My dad owned a small town movie theatre and a drive-in when I was a kid. I began operating projectors at twelve. The advent of xenon lamps and platter systems eliminated the need for a projectionist to be with each machine. As a result, your typical projectionist has about as much professionalism as any other young person flipping burgers at your local fast food chain, it requires no professional training or education. Showing a film, which is using proper lenses, making sure the screen is masked correctly, and making sure the picture is framed and focused, is fairly easy. What counts most is that the projector, screen and sound are properly set up to begin with, but the projectionist has to care enough about his or her job to take care of the simple things. The big problem with theatres is that they have not really had to compete with home theater before. Home theater is now very affordable, convenient, and damn good. If movie theaters don't really concentrate on quality control or strive to deliver an experience beyond home veiwing, the future could be very grim. The tiny screens inside of cracker boxes built in the eighties just won't do it. My father, who is supposedly retired, still sets up quite a few projection booths and rebuilds and installs equipment mostly for independent theaters. I myself see only about one movie a year in an actual theater. The theater I grew up watching movies in was built in the 1940's and had a lot of character (and a big ass screen).

TBFL

Until I can sit and watch a movie at the commercial theater wearing nothing but my boxers, I'll take the convenience of DVDs at home........

wordtoyamotha

going on my signature

Spiky

Perhaps if any theater near me could be bothered to have decent sound I would like the theater. Since they don't, it's at home for me.

Cameron

lets see go to the theater and smell the jokers behind me smoking out, the kids in front of me swapping spit, the old man's breathing machine clicking, the 2 year old (in a r rated film mind you) screaming, my shoes sticking to the floor, the sounds of whispers and cell phones, the sight of laser pointers...or

a movie i start when i want, pause when i want, as loud as i want.

you decide.

divemaster

Too many times I go to the theater and can't make out the dialogue. The audio is set so that every ambient sound is amplified to the max (which is fine, as I love loud movies and thundering sound--where appropriate), but what good is that if you can't understand what people are saying?

Now, some movies are not really dialogue-driven and this is not a big deal, but when my wife and I went to see Mystic River I had to get up and complain. The sound was just too low. It's doubly hard for my wife for whom English is a second language.

Of course, it took me 10 minutes just to find someone who could adjust the sound. It was a midday showing and the only person I could find was the high-schooler at the concession. I guess he finally found someone to tweak the sound b/c a little while later it was turned up.

I don't have this problem with my home system.

VincentVega

My local Cineplex Odeon theater which was bulit around four years ago is pretty crappy. The picture is dirty even at the first showing and I've never seen them play a DTS soundtrack only DD 5.1. I've seen movies misframed and some trailers anamorphicly (sp?) squeezed. When I saw The Two Towers the sound on the right side of the theater was barely audiable. I also hate the audience. In the last two years I've only seen 3 movies at the theater and I used to see one every couple of weeks. Plus I could buy a good though used dvd for the price of a ticket. So I guess I'm saying I like the dvd presentation better.

scarredgod

i have been to drive-in theaters, multiplex theaters and art house theaters in many states thruout the country and i have never seen a film that didnt look crappy.

no difference in the people either, theyre loud and obnoxious even in the classy art houses.

i will wait for the dvd.

DWilson

Unfortunately, one of the "down" sides of seeing movies with friends is that you often use the more convenient choice, rather than the "best" choice. More often than not, I'm going to a theater in the "Wehrenberg" chain (I'm from St. Louis, MO) and they rarely project the film at the proper brightness; this makes for a "softer" picture with "gray" blacks. This is a cost-saving measure I learned about from Siskel and Ebert's show (they say Martin Scorsese actually brings a light meter with him, and few theaters meet the correct standards. On the other hand, the other major chain, "AMC" tends tend to much more correct on the aspect ratio and the projection appears sharper.
Also, I feel that a lot of the "surrounding sounds" in the theater's "Surround Sound" are swallowed up by the "enviroment", and where you sit in the theater, -where you are in regard to the speaker placement, can change the movie experience (closer to the front, the dialogue takes the forefront, while if you sit closer to the rear, the dialogue softens slightly and blends with the rear surrounds, often to its detriment.
I regard watching a film on DVD, in most cases, as finally seeing a film at its best advantage, with the lighting properly controlled and able to hear "all" the sounds ...

Mike Lowrey

Agreed to all points. The last movie I went to see in the theater was The Two Towers. And before that I think it was Attack of the Clones.

I quit going because, well basically, all the reasons stated above. Poor framing, poor sound, poor lighting, distracting audience (nothing like going to Ep. I and hearing the 8 year-olds laugh), sticky floors, lousy seats (although I'm handicapped and sit in the handicap section which ain't bad, but it's in the rear).

I much prefer to wait for the DVDs lately. With turn-around being 4-6 months these days, I can wait. Besides, theatrical presentations are becoming the previews to the DVDs anyway.

I've got a 32" Sony VVEGA as well. SHARP 5.1 surround system 230 W total. All in my bedroom, even though the sound system is a bit underpowered, it's fairly adequate in my bedroom. Shakes the house as it is.

deepest blue

yea i guess you guys are right.so basically the only good thing about seeing a flick in the theater is the big ass screen.movies look sharper and sound better on DVD anyway

DWilson

The big ass screen, yeah, and the fact its still one of the less expensive ways of getting together with my friends, and share a common experience. I almost never watch films at friend's homes, -its more of a private thing. Also, there are just some films I want to see when they're "fresh", -not four months later when most of the details have leaked out, and plot points have been hashed and re-hashed (at least with something higher profile like "Spider-Man 2" or "The Day After Tomorrow".

Qui Gon Jim

I used to go to the movies a couple times a week. Now I go maybe once a month if that. Economics is part of it. For me and my fiancee to go to the movies it costs $18.50 ($13.00 matinee), We have to deal with the crowd which has gotten worse and worse in the past 5 years as theaters get bigger and bigger. For that amount we can easily buy the DVD and watch it to our heart's content, and sell it if the film blows and recoup some money. We watch when we want take breaks from the film when we want etc.

For the big films, I will go to the theater- LOTR, Kill Bill etc. Even though there are positives to watching on DVD, my HT still does not match up to a theater. If only for the crowds. Sigh.

PS The sticky floor comment made me laugh!