True, but a theater can work out terms with the studio to screen a disc, just like any print.

agreed. most schools have a permit that they pay yearly for that allows them to show these films. Churches do the same thing with songs, they pay a liscence to put the words and music on a screen, and to sing them. Same way sports bars pay more for satelite service, when showing games in the bar...

I recently went to go see a theatrical showing of The Goonies at an AMC theater in Orlando. I told myself, "When else are you going to get the chance like this." Within the first few minutes, it was apparent that this was not a film print, the quality was just plain terrible. Unwatchable. I turned around and noticed that the image was not coming from the main projector, but rather another, smaller projector from the side. Of the few of us there, no one else seemed to mind.

I got up to speak to an employee. I asked if we were being shown a DVD, and she said yes, but the quality is likely how the movie looked back then, since its an "old movie." Needless to say, I asked for a refund from the manager. The manager said, "Oh, well that is an original print, so the quality is not as good." I said, "I was told it was a DVD." Then the manager said, "Yes, it is a DVD."

I was really taken aback by the whole experience. I have seen theatrical re-showing of older films in the past (2001 A Space Odyssey, E.T.) and felt lucky for the opportunity. I am shocked that there was no disclaimer beforehand and that they were charging full price for a ticket. I was even more shocked that no one else in the audience seemed to care. I can understand (though not agree) with those who can't see the difference between HD and upconverted DVD on their television, but this DVD blown up to the size of a theater screen looked absolutly horrible.

I am sure film prints for these older films are harder to obtain, but the the AFI Silver and Alamo Drafthouse seem to be able to do it quite regularly. While I like the idea of mainstream theaters having special "throw-back" engagments, if they're just going to blow-up a DVD image on the screen, they can go on and keep that.

Yes, it would bother me very much. Very, very, very, yell at manager and march into the projection room, very, very much.

The college theater a few years back showed for three weeks, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. On the second week, the copy of Two Towers turned out to be damaged, so everyone who showed up got their money back and was told they could stay for the extended edition DVD of the movie. The difference was noticeable, but it was a very nice gesture to say the least.

but a couple times during the European Union Film Fest a couple years back the distributor's only had DVD not film for projection at the AFI Silver needless to say, to only see the movie was to endure the DVD - which while not an ideal way to view the movie was acceptable to a point.

The digital projection of 'El Cid' to coincide with the Miriam Collection DVD release was a major bust, I didn't go, but from what I heard and read online, many customers were disgusted with what they saw alot of people up and left. Digital projection when done right, can and should look great, but once and awhile imperfect conditions and situations can really marr and upset moviegoers.

Our local art museum does this. They have a nice outdoor, terraced area and decent set up. You get there around 6, then eat dinner and drink until the movie starts around 10. The quality's not close to seeing a film print, but it's a fun way to spend an evening and there aren't a lot of options for seeing classic movies on a big screen around here.

I'd rather see a scratchy, faded film print than a pristine DVD copy anytime.

If it's a film I like enough to want to see again in a pristine DVD edition, then I can always do that on my own time. But in a theater I want to see a film, a FILM--with sprocket holes and grain, and a carbon projection lamp, dammit--every time!

Movie theaters generally have relationships with the movie studios, and are often granted permission to run content from a DVD.

then you would have loved seeing 'Star Trek II' on the big screen at the AFI last night, every film nuiance was there.

I was at the AFI for El Cid and it was a terrible bust. However, we did get free passes which we used to see a 70mm presentation of 2001. That was awesome and made up for the El Cid fiasco.

Yeah, it sucks. I saw First Blood at Regal and it was just the "First Look" projector that was playing it. What really pissed me off was that it cost $10 for the ticket. I bought the movie for $5 at Wal Mart.

I'm sorry, but if you think a DVD looks as good as a beat-up 35mm print, you need your eyes examined. Even with the best home theater set-up in the world, DVD will simply never look good as film (let it be 16mm or 35mm).

I've seen 35mm prints of films in pristine condition (recently Clue, which looked like it was filmed just yesterday) and those that were simply beat the fuck up (recently The Goonies and Ferris Bueller's Day Off); but even those prints that were in the worst of conditions blew away the DVD transfer in every possible way. The prints may have had massive amounts of grain and scratches galore, but DVD will never match the clarity of film.

Now if they were projecting Blu-rays on a great projector system, it would be hard to tell as Blu is close to the resolution of 2k (most digital cinema projectors out there); but there is no possible way that I'd pay to watch a DVD transfer in a movie theater. For that, I'd just stay and up-convert it in the luxury of my own home.

goin to the afi friday night to see pink floyd's the wall. that ought to be great with the music and the trippy images on the big screen. question giles (or for anyone who goes to the afi silver), are they using the big room for this fesival or one of the 2 smaller rooms?

And i recently saw The Shining at a midnight screening at the E street landmark theater in dc. a worn print for sure, but it added to the creepiness of certain scenes. Also got to see a trailer for 'dr strangelove' before hand which was cool.

Definitely film.

Over the last two weeks, I've seen projected DVDs of Back to the Future and Laura and both were disappointing, to say the least. The problem with projecting DVDs, to me, is that the image comes off as very flat on a huge screen.

That theater, the Universal Cineplex, is notorious for DVD projection. They used to run prints, but last year, due to "costs," they switched over to DVD only.

The absurd part of it all is how the management is trained to DENY they're running a DVD. Either they claim it's a print or they swear it's a Blu-ray. You have to pinch the management a little to get them to admit they're running DVDs.

Image quality is always horrific. I actually peeked into "Goonies" during its run just to recharge my disgust batteries, and it looked like a YouTube video up on the screen. I can't believe the 10 or so gathered would willingly part with $7.50 to sit through that. But that's why theaters are getting away with this crap -- the general public either doesn't understand or they don't care.

yeah, I thinking of seeing Pink Floyd on Friday too, I'll let you know if indeed I'm going. As for your question, the AFI does tend to move films around between the auditoriums, but I think they try to keep the classic films in the largest auditorium. 'Star Trek II' was on the largest screen two nights ago.

I'd assume 'Dr. Strangelove' prints currently making the rounds is sourced from the recent 4K restoration Sony/Columbia had done, the DC premier of that restoration was shown initially at the National Gallery of Art last summer in 35mm form.

And because 35mm film has a lot higher resolution, and because 35mm can potray more accurate colors. Theres no contest between 35mm film and DVD, hell, theres no contest between 35mm film and Blu Ray.

^ check out the 'Baraka' on bluray

I caught Ghostbusters here in Pittsburgh at South Side Works a few weeks ago, and I was shocked to see it was in film. Granted, it was a pretty rough print, with some crackling audio, but it all lent to the charm. Very fun to watch with an almost 50% full theater who were all into it.

Um, Blu Ray has half the resolution of 35mm film. Watching a movie on Blu Ray is great for the home, but compared to DLP Cinema and 35mm, it doesn't compare. Just doesn't.

I thought film doesn't have resolution?

In terms of resolution, Blu-ray (1080p) is very similar to 2K digital projection. Consumer projectors may not compare to that of what Christie or Texas Instruments puts out, but resolution wise, it's a close gap.



I'd prefer if more theaters started switching to 4K digital projection, but it seems the support for that may have lost some steam thanks due to AMC and Regal going head over heels for fake-IMAX (which is also fake-4K).

Texas Instruments though has 4K in the cards since Sony is implementing it on their systems. The DLP-4K rollout upgrades are expected to begin early next year.

a good 35mm print can be as high as 6k resolution. 70mm is 8k