Beware: DVD being projected!
 

This from the Nashville Scene, our weekly freebie newspaper:

Is this becoming more common? Does projecting DVDs instead of film bother cinephiles? Should theatres explicitly state whether it’s projecting DVD or film?

I have no problem as long as the equipment is of quality, especially with the condition of some of the prints of these older movies.

I went to see "Mallrats" during one of those "re-run" series and they used a DVD to show that. You could see the word "PLAY" in the corner when they started it up.

I'm not fuming with anger, but I could have saved $3 and watched that at home.

I saw a screening of "Goldfinger" a few years ago and even though the print was less than perfect at least it wasn't the DVD projected.

If i had a 20' screen at home, I might feel ripped off, but otherwise, it don't think it would bother me. In some cases, the DVD might look better.

i would be pissed if i found out a theater was playing from a dvd, why not put the price of admission towards the purchase of the dvd? plus i'd want to see the 'ciggerette burns' :)

As long as it's made known before buying a ticket, I have no problem with projecting DVDs.

Isn't it illegal to do this? I'm not opposed to it, especially if a decent print can't be located (or a restored version is available only on DVD), but I thought that's one of the prohibitions specifically named int the FBI warning we get to see on most Region 1 DVD releases.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Moderators?

the movie is being shown at a student run theatre at Vanderbilt University, maybe there is some exception regarding "educational" screenings ?

Yes i think it bothers cinephile to the extreme sometimes. Watch the documentary Cinemania for a good look at something to that extent. Most educational film departments have liscence from a studio for this sort of thing.

Personally, I go two fold with this...I would rather watch a film print. At small theaters and school screening I usually call ahead and ask. If its dvd, and its not free, i usually pass. Only exception is when i am taking someone to see the movie for the first time. This can be good and bad though. Digital, and dvd bring back revival screening. Christie projectors across the nation have been showing some classics (blues brothers, most of the free matinee animated titles) this makes revival screening easier. Its good to have them, but its not a replacement for film.

at the same time i saw a film print of alien just a few weeks back. the film was scratched to pieces, and broke twice. when you pay for that you feel jipped.

Long story short...i like the idea. but i usually call ahead.

Yeah, once I started going to the movies again after a long absence and plunge into the dvd market, the first thing I noticed was how much better my DVD's and TV looked at home compared to movies on theater screens.

I couldn't imagine DVD ever looking better than a film print... sure, DVD can certainly be cleaner (stratches on film) but the resolution is SO much lower.

I'd assume you don't bother watching DLP 'films' in the theatre either ;)

on a side note, here in the District the theatre systems at the Avalon theatre and the AFI's Silver Theatre - have shown some projected video (HiDef at the Silver) and it looks great. A number of 'films' at this year's Reel Affirmation's Film Festival are presenting their films from a video source, and when viewed at the Lincoln Theatre - truly looks awful. I learned this from last year's festival, hence I'm not bothering seeing any festival film this year.

Every summer a local theater runs "classic" films. This year they showed more modern fare like ET, Indiana Jones, Titanic and the like, so I went to see Braveheart when they showed it. $8 admission and it was the friggin DVD playing. -ohbfrank- It was still cool to see it on a giant screen again, but with the noticeable flaws from the dvd, it was evident that it was the dvd they were using.

I don't think I'd mind so much if it wasn't $8 admission + parking (downtown theater). $3 tops.

While I don't agree with the practice in question here, I do agree with what you're saying Giantrobo. I've seen plenty of films at the theater that just didn't look that good - too grainy, soft images and what not. And sometimes the sound is an issue, too. But watching the same film at home on DVD, there would be a big difference. Sometimes enough so that it completely changed my opinion of the movie.

It shouldn't bother me, yet it would.

The think is that it wasn't mentioned that it would be played from a DVD.

It didn't bother me too much as i could finally hear the movie in its 5.1 sound...but i was a bit bummed because i was expecting it to be an actual "film".

Previous movies shown (I hope) had been actual film and not something played off of a DVD.


As for the legality of it being shown..i dunno. This wasn't some art theater, it was the big chain 16 theater multi-plex showing this DVD.

Too bad many places don't bother.

I saw BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA at a midnight show a couple weeks back, and it was DVD projected.

Talking to the manager, it seems that a good print of the film wasn't an option, so they went the DVD way. They didn't seem to understand just how silly it is.

I couldn't care less as long as the picture quality is decent.

As others have said, I don't have the huge screen at home. Not even close with my 27" Sony Wega. :D

The print would have to be TERRIBLE to look worse than 480p, especially when projected on a big screen. I think some folks pimp their systems just a little too much around here.

then they need to fire the programmer. If they don't understand the diffrence they don't need to run the theater.

Whatever Groucho. There was no "pimping" in my comments and seeing that others have had the same experience I would say it's a valid observation.


But I guess you know better than the rest of us so I guess we stand corrected.

Very definitely.

I'm looking at a catalogue for <i>Tournees</i>, a program designed to subsidize and promote French-made movies among college and campus groups, and they say: <i>"Films must be shown in 16mm, 35mm or DVD format."</i>

Well, DVD's tend to be really brightened up and they look as good on a standard TV as standard TV can get, so in comparison to a muddy old print the DVD can be a lot shinier and more pristine-looking.... on a t.v. set. But every time I've seen a DVD image blown up onto a big screen, it looks horrible and nothing like it does on a TV. I've been to lectures where they show a film on 35mm, then the lecturer goes back to specific scenes using DVD projection and even the trashiest print looked better than the DVD..

Anyway as to the question here, yes, a theatre absolutely MUST disclose the format of the screening, especially if it's not going to be the standard 35mm. To not do so is essentially false advertising because there is enough precedent to assume that a film shown in a theatre for money will actually be film.

Same here. I don't rightly know why It'd bother me but it would. Especially if they used a flipper :)

If we're talking standard, commercially availble DVDs llike anyone can buy at any B&M store (or where ever), then yes, I do have a problem with it.

First, DVDs just don't come close to the quality of film. Even currently installed Hi-Def projection systems can't match the resolution of film. Provided, of course, you're dealing with a decent print and projector. While a movie theatre digital projection system can throw a great image, it can't make an image look better than the limitations of the media.

Second, it's illegal (no if's, and's or but's) and clearly says so on every such DVD. They are meant for non-commercial, private, home viewing only.

Agreed. You can't even begin to compare the resolution.