SINGLE104

Thank You!

nodeerforamonth

Ok, I'm "ignorant" because I have a different opinion than you (kind of). Nice. Very open-minded and accepting of you.

Theater owners SHOULD remove the offending parties. If they did, I would still go to theater. But they don't. And they don't get my business.

I'm just saying that if people are paying more, they would make sure they'd get more out of it. I would've paid $30 to see "Revenge Of The Sith" in a theater that was quiet. Instead, I had a family opening up a bag of candies the whole film and chatting during a part of the movie I waited 30 years to see.

awmurray

You're quite the artful dodger, digi.

I think you need to do some research yourself since you're the only one arguing for your position here.

There are other people in this thread who are saying the equivalent of what I'm saying. I would think, as the sole proponent of your position, you would be kind enough to educate us all.

Oh, yea, let me add some credibility to my case: *yawn*, *shrug*, ,

digitalfreaknyc

I'm waiting for some credibility on your side as well.

Please. Tell me. How can your system be better than celluloid?

NatrlBornThrllr

Yeah, but that high resolution is stretched out on a 35 foot screen, as opposed to the smaller resolution of DVD on a 110" screen. You see, things aren't always absolute.

digitalfreaknyc

Film was made to be shown on a 35 foot screen.

DVD wasn't made to be shown on a 110" screen.

I saw 35mm prints this weekend (not even 70mm) and they were light years beyond the recently digitally restored versions of Indy. The screen is also massive.

Layne

I disagree. The quality of the film in the theater isnt always the best. Maybe if I went to opening night for every film I went to see in the theater, yet thats rare. The film quality on the screen is not that great. I went to see a movie recently and there was a tear in the screen on the left that kept grabbing my attention. This isnt some hick theater - this is downtown Chicago.

Also as I mention, the theater experience can be somewhat annoying. I mean spending the cash is bad enough, yet dealing with crying children, and children under 13 kicking the back of my seat repeatedly over the hour and a half I'm sitting there trying to watch the film. This has happened during the last 3 films I have seen at 3 different "top of the line" DLP theaters. Each time we ask the kid to stop. Then ask the parent (who, in one instance, brought their child to an EXTREMELY violent R-rated film) to make the kid stop repeatedly. And you suggest I get up and get an usher or someone from the theater to come in. Let's run through that scenerio. I paid $10. I go sit down. Movie starts. Kid kicks my seat. I stop watching the film. Turn around and ask the child to stop. Stops for 15 minutes. Starts again. I stop watching the film again. I find the parent and ask them to quiet their child. Works for about 15 minutes. I stop watching the movie. Ask the parent again to stop the child. Now you want me to leave the movie I paid to see and ask an usher to come in and disrupt everyone's movie to either ask the parent what I already did or make them move? Not worth my time or money.

21+ theater? I'm there.

lotsofdvds

I think the point most people are trying to make is that they'll gladly sacrifice some picture and sound quality for an overall better experience with a movie. DVD allows you total control. Going to a theater is a crap shoot.

And this notion that raising ticket prices would help curb the problem? Horsehockey.

digitalfreaknyc

That's because the quality of the film will break down after it's been shown 100 times or you get someone who doesn't know what they're doing handling it...etc etc. Regardless, what is on the film is what matters and film as a medium is still a greater quality than any of the home mediums could ever hope to achieve at the moment. A tear in the screen has nothing to do with the film itself.

lotsofdvds

Another reason to avoid theaters.

digitalfreaknyc

Well...THAT I could agree with. Although, again, I still prefer going to the movies. As someone who's in the arts, I prefer seeing things with an audience than sitting at home alone. I go for the communal experience. When it's right, that energy cannot be replicated.

digitalfreaknyc

Again...maybe the theaters you're going to. I don't have these problems with presentation that some of you others do. The last time I had a problem with something like that was in the late 90's.

awmurray

Blowing up any image decreases image quality (including film).

Now in the real world can you tell the difference at your preferred seating distance? The best way to tell is to find a mid-high end audio/video store where they have the projectors set up and see for yourself.

I have an mid-tier LCD projector (Sanyo PLC-XP21N), but once you get beyond about 8 feet from the screen the artifacts introduced by the LCD technology (i.e. the screen door effect) go away. At this distance it looks better than the theater to me. One reason is the DVD has much less dirt/scratches/etc. on it than the technically superior film print.

I would say the results are comparable to what you'd see on a rear projection HD set as well. At least they are for the ones I've seen.

And, when you go to the AV store, can you do us all a favor and take digi???

digitalfreaknyc

Can someone please explain to awmurray that just because it's his opinion, it doesn't make it fact?

Layne

Let me send you the kid that kicks the back of seats with the bligerant parent that could care less and we'll see how you like that theater experience.

lotsofdvds

And the problem there is that more times than not, you get the "wrong" experience rather than the "right" one. If I want to gamble some money away I'll hit the craps table. My free time and extra cash are hard earned... I don't feel like "risking" a night out... hoping and praying that people will behave themselves. At home with a DVD, the only risk is that the movie might suck, not the experience.

awmurray

Holy shit, digi. Likewise...

digitalfreaknyc

My argument is not with people who have a problem with other people in the theaters. Honestly, that's the only valid argument I can agree with.

You don't like the price of food? Bring your own.

You don't like the price of the movie? Go to a matinee.

Personally, $10 ain't a big deal for a good presentation. And again, the theaters I go to don't have a problem with that.

Put in the cell phone blockers and I'm happy.

digitalfreaknyc

DVD has a limited amount of resolution.

FACT.

Film has a MUCH greater "resolution" than DVD will ever have.

FACT.

Your home theater looks better than a movie theater.

Opinion.

Jet_Jaguar

I don't think I'm missing anything from my setup v. theaters. I get more in fact as I get the sound levels right and never have to put up with framing or focus issues. Even if I did lose a bit in the exchange it wouldn't make up for the all the thoughtless-people-crap that happens in a movie house.

Too bad really cuz I like the "event" of going to the movies. Just not the result.......

Now the only reason to go to the theater is if it's a comedy as those tend to be helped by a big crowd.

NatrlBornThrllr

Yeah, and I've seen DVDs projected on my friend's top-end HT set-up that "were light years beyond" anything I've seen in local theaters. Are we really just going to spend our afternoon comparing personal experiences?

HD uses half as many pixils as film (1920 vs. 4096). Projected on a 110" screen vs. a 35' screen (the theatrical screen being nearly four times larger, but using only twice as many pixils), the image will be sharper. Anamorphic DVD: 720, more than enough for any modest HT set-up...especially if you take into account the distance from the screen and the many flaws of theatrical screenings (be it print damage, older equipment, rough screens, etc).

How you can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a theatrical screening offers a better visual experience than a projected HT screening is beyond me. You're making the mistake of looking only at the figures and not taking into account all of the variables. All told, I'd say that it's up in the air as to which is better...and there's certainly not a difference wide enough to get preachy about.

-JP

Layne

I can't tell the difference from one theater to the next regarding the high quality of celluloid. Even DLP wasnt that great for Sith. You can't sell me and I really want to buy it.

awmurray

If I have to have a fucking microscope to see the difference at my seating distance, I don't give a shit.

FACT.

digitalfreaknyc

Enh. Sorry. That won't hold up in court.

awmurray

I'm not disputing the facts you listed.

What I'm saying is that perceived image quality will always be opinion (not fact).

What you said originally is opinion as well:

That said, I still say my home setup is better than the local theater for image and sound quality. I didn't realize I had to clarify that YMMV. Aparently a lot of people here feel the same way though from reading their posts.