8mm Forum: My Horrible Cinema Experience

This is topic My Horrible Cinema Experience in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002372

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 03, 2012, 05:00 PM:

Took the wife out last night to see the new Denzel Washington movie Flight. We arrived a few minutes early and had to suffer through some TV commercials. Then the lights dimmed and on came a pack of 8 previews, all of which were deafening with the same explosion effect between each cut of the trailer, all mindless violence or juvenile body function humor, not a worthwhile movie amongst the lot. Following this barrage of noise, my head was literally swimming - I am sure the sound level was over 110db - it was like being physically assaulted!
Then the lights dimmed all the way down, and a lead -in to the film announced that " This digital film presentation is presented by Texas Instruments DLP Cinema". Great I thought, finally the movie. The film faded in and my first reaction was 'What is wrong with this picture?" The picture was very dim, shadow detail was almost gone, and the whole thing just seemed very dull and flat. My Panasonic AE4000 would have blown this cinema projector away! Well if the picture was bad, the start of the film was worse. I was expecting a sophisticated action drama, but the first 15 minutes were shots of nudity, prostitution, cocaine snorting, heroin injecting, and a porno movie set! I looked at my wife and I knew it was time to leave. When we got out of the theater she said the whole experienc made her sick.
We went home and I put on a DVD of a classic film , made in a gentler, more sane, era.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on December 03, 2012, 05:13 PM:

Couldn't agree more. The digital cinema just doesn't do it for me. I miss 35mm cinema ... Good and warm pictures, no pixelations, cold colors ... Reel is real film

Posted by Trevor Adams (Member # 42) on December 03, 2012, 06:15 PM:

The really scary thing is that many young folk lap this muck up!

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on December 03, 2012, 07:14 PM:

Sorry you had a bad experience.

Peaks of 110 decibles is "reference" for theaters but the whole movie shouldn't be that loud.

The dim image might be due to the bulb dying or the theater also is 3D capable and the 3D was left on by mistake. Shouldn't happen but it does.

Flight is rated R and is a drama. The airplane rescue is only small part of the movie. Better research could have saved you and your wife a bad experience.

My experiences with digital have all been perfect. Looking exactly like a pristine 35mm print. The image was bright, clear, with warm colors. No pixelation nor should there be any at 2K which is what most digital showings are.

Sound was loud during the previews but not overbearing and the movie was a bit lower. I actually wanted the movie louder!

Remember, just beacuse YOU have a bad experience with digital does not mean ALL digital presentations are like that.

The theater I go to is run by people who care about the cinema experience and that makes all the difference.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 03, 2012, 07:21 PM:

Tom,
If 110db is the "reference' level in move theatres, then it is way too high and falls in the region of permanent ear damage. I know my ears were hurting after 20 minutes of those trashy trailers! [Mad]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 03, 2012, 07:53 PM:

Paul

Shame you had this experence, I guess a lot of it comes down to the people running the place. If they keep that up they will loose their customers. I can only add, that our local Reading does it pretty well either with film or digital. The digital presentation of "The Sound Of Music" of late was very good, the picture and sound levels were spot on, and no adds or trailers....nothing on the front. The lights dimmed and we went straight into the movie.

Presentation in film or video can be a disaster if the place is run by clueless wonders.

Did you complain?

Graham.

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on December 03, 2012, 10:27 PM:

quote:
Tom, If 110db is the "reference' level in move theatres, then it is way too high and falls in the region of permanent ear damage. I know my ears were hurting after 20 minutes of those trashy trailers!

Paul, I said PEAKS of 110db. Meaning the occasional explosion might be at that level, NOT the whole movie!

The normal volume should be around 85db or less.

Trailers are mixed to play at twice the volume of the feature. It's been this way for decades.

The theater I go to plays the trailers at a decent volume. However, this results in the movie being lower than it should be. Not low enough to really complain though. I would be happy with just a notch or two higher than they have it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on December 04, 2012, 02:52 AM:

A poor EQ can make ANY volume level hurt. Sadly, very few techs know how to properly calibrate a room these days.

A professional theater will turn the volume down for previews and up for the feature. For example, our typicall default is trailers at 4 and feature at 7. That's with a properly-calibrated room though.

Also DLP SHOULD beat the pants off of any 35mm print these days, but again there are cheap theater owners burning bulbs that are too small for their screens just like there was with 35mm. Likewise there are lazy techs who take the "point and shoot" method of setting up the projector.

Either the theater cares or they don't. Just don't patronize the crappy ones.

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on December 04, 2012, 02:11 PM:

My experience recently with presentation at Washington D.C.'s premier theater, the Uptown, mirrors Paul's. it was Skyfall... previews were far higher decibel level than the movie. almost made me want to leave. The actual movie sound wasn't so bad. BUT....the picture was just a bit dim...especially in already dimly lit scenes....but the worst was that when people were walking or moving...as they spouted dialog, their faces were noticeably fuzzy...not sharp. As soon as they stopped moving, the picture snapped into sharp focus. Don't know why....but theorize that the resolving power was enough to make the 0's and 1's change fast enough to keep up....that maybe they had to compress it to the point that it could keep focus on rapidly changing elements in the picture. This would not have been the case with film....

Good movie, though.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 04, 2012, 02:21 PM:

My only cinema experience of the past two years was recently at a special screening of "Celebration Day". My only complaint was, it wasn't loud enough.
[Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 04, 2012, 03:46 PM:

What I used to do was to run all adds and trailers at a lower volume setting, then go into the theatre at the back where there was a main volume control box, just catching the last trailer and as the lights would go down I would adjust the sound level to suit the size and age of the audience. I did that on every screening on the three screens. It also gave me a chance to check the focus at the same time, and if needed, rush up stairs and tweak the focus a little to get it just right. I would check each cinema a couple of times during a film to make sure in my mind everything was ok.

We had a good sound system with plenty of grunt in reserve and every so often the experts would come and spend time tuning it up with there fancy gear. Even after the tune up, they would run or watch some film and I would often listen as well, to hear how it had been adjusted. I could crank up the sound if I wanted to, and because of the way it was set it up and with those amps just ticking over, those middle or high range sound levels were still ok and not uncomfortabe to the ears. I remember the first "Narnia" film. It had a loud explosion in a scene at the start. I used to put my hand on the glass window in the projection room and feel the force of the "sub" hitting it, and thought....the level feels about right [Big Grin]

Reading the above posts, makes me think that people are just going to be driven away from going to the cinema if some of those places dont get there act together, to the benefit of staying home and watching home entertainment instead. [Roll Eyes]

Graham.

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on December 04, 2012, 05:24 PM:

Gary's experience is, to me, particularly depressing as the Uptown, the queen of DC theatres, was where one got 70mm in its full glory on their gigantic Cinerama screen.

Alien
Lawrence of Arabia
Ben-Hur...

And now this proud old girl has been turned into a mediocre digital house....I won't go. That would hurt.

One should have hoped that, at the very least, management would have respected the past glory of the place enough to install only the highest-level digital system....guess not.

Claus.

Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on December 04, 2012, 06:25 PM:

I don't go to the cinema anymore....

Bill [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 07, 2012, 01:15 PM:

I don't go to the movie theaters anymore, but that's only because I'm a crabby ole 47 year old!

The manners and morals of most moviegoers these days allkows them to let they're rotten crumb crunchers run amuck while you try to enjoy your film. I couldn't count the times I have wanted to turn around and clobber some parent or some damned teenagers who can't shut off they're blasted cell phones long enough to actually watch a film ...

but now that everything is going digital, I now have a better excuse for not going! Yay!!!

This brings up an interesting point for me ...

I always hear that "It was like looking at 35MM", well hell, give me 35MM anyday now! If 48p and digital in general is so superior, then don't even try to "mimic" 35MM!

The reason?

1. People are comfortable with the "film look" but that will pass over time ...

2. ... and most importantly, digital in the long run, is cheaper that countless 35MM theatrical prints.

However, I would even question number 2# (I'd rather just flush number 2# HAHAHA! Ehem ... sorry, just a little "potty humour"!) ...

getting back to seriousness ...

From what I hear, the digital projection equipment will never be a set standard, as constant upgrades will be in order by the studios, so how will the theatres ever be able to keep up, especially ... financially?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 07, 2012, 01:27 PM:

That is a very good point Osi, standardisation, and if they're
chopping and changing for evermore,what with 3D and this 48fps
it will all end in tears, and d'you know something, I couldn't
care less.The films are lacklustre,sloppily made adverts for Coke
Cola etc, and the cinema's ( should that description still be used )
are only interested in patrons eating as much junk food as can be
sold to them at extortionate prices,much better to get the DVD.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 07, 2012, 01:49 PM:

One thing to keep in mind is that the continued prosperity of the movie theaters and the film studios is in our own interests. DVD'S and Blu Rays of the old studio classics will only keep coming as long as the studios are making lots of money. So if the showing of trashy movies to dumbed down audiences rakes in enough cash that the studios can restore and release great films on disc, then that is definately a deal I can live with.
But there is no doubt that the glory days of the movie theaters is long gone. Those of us who grew up in the 30's, 40's and 50's will always remember what a trip to the cinema used to be, and how special it was in a time when showmanship was everything - the lavish decor of the movie palaces, the theater organ playing, the audience sing-alongs, the dimming of the lights, the parting of the curtains, the Pathe News cockerel and fanfare, or 'This is Movietone, Leslie Mitchell reporting". All long gone.
But, the upside of the new digital technology is that we can now replicate at least some of that experience in our own homes.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 07, 2012, 06:32 PM:

Osi-At the last NAB they introduced laser digital projectors. So the projectors at the theater now will soon be obsolete.

Going to see West Side Story in 70mm tonight.

I have been saying all along about the dimness of the digital projectors. And I was surprised to see Flight had so much drug use and sex being a Robert Zemeckis film. My brother who is an engineer and has worked on many planes says those planes are not designed to do acrobatics.

Found a short video on it:

http://vimeo.com/42950606

Also for home use.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 07, 2012, 07:25 PM:

"The really scary thing is that many young folk lap this muck up!"

I was young folk once and I probably lapped it up then; based upon what research?

To be fair, 48 fps may offer better 3D presentation. When it finally is released, let us have some informed reviews please.

Regarding Sound...EQ; YES! Brad, absoluuuuuutely! EQ is the answer to most theatres, nay, home enviroments.

Since the start of my career in sound, EQ was so important.
Now, back to basics, but whatever soundtrack you start with, you can tailor it to your equipment / enviroment. This means that even a "duffer" track it can be "tailored" to your system.

And this doesn't mean anything "fancy dan", just careful speaker placement and a good ear for treble / bass control... [Smile]

Then, if you enjoy sound reproduction, go from there...

So...big volume should mean impressive, not aggressive!!

As for death of cinema, well...dangerous ground...I'm of a mind to say cinema is dead. I say that because I don't recgonise it anymore. Last time I went to the "cinema" was to see Prometheus 3D at the Empire Liecester Square. Surely state of the art?

No.

The projection booth was now drapped in black cloth ready to accomodate new seating, whilst the projector was hung upon the ceiling above my head, "disguised" in a cheap wooden box, painted black.

Nice picture, I suppose, but nothing I can't see at home.

I don't want to see my home cinema compete with Leicester Square...or do I; maybe I'm sick of enduring that enviroment, maybe I think my home cinema is equal to professional cinema, maybe I don't like "modern" films any more...maybe I think "I'm" the showman...

Thoughts...

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 08, 2012, 12:58 PM:

Looking at the line up of movies that are on in this city at the moment I cant find one thats listed I would go and see. Its unbelievable that even our local Reading cinema is not running one film in the weekend for the kids, its all teen stuff [Roll Eyes]

The cinema where I last worked we always ran a number of kids movies in the weekend and the place did very well for it.
The area was industrial and had a lot of young families, our target audience was the kids and the over 50s. We were lucky we were an independant and could negotiate directly with the film distributors. I would often be dragged into the managers office and have to sit through many trailers and lists of up and comimg films, and from that we would decide what to take months ahead of their release.

The big cinemas would never operate out of what I would call their "comfort zone" we did and it worked, thats why we sold fifty four thousand tickets in the twelve months before the place closed, not bad for only three screens.

Apart from going to "The Sound Of Music" of late, there is nothing else around I am interested in going to see. The present line up looks really boring, so I am glad for home entertainment.

I dont think the future for the cinema looks good at all, they are spending large sums of money to go digital for what [Roll Eyes]

to screen more low "ho hum" stuff.

We are not all Hobbit and Twilight fans...so where are the movies for the rest of us? [Roll Eyes]

.

Graham.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on December 08, 2012, 01:06 PM:

You had a really good point there , Paul.

I watched the "Cinerama" documentary with "How the West Was Won" DVD, and, as you said, it was REALLY an event!

Fortunately, in Boise Idaho (one city over from us) they still have many a premiere at the old Egyptian Theatre, (a lovely old school theater, you should see the get up inside!) and, at least for the moment, it's 35MM!

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 08, 2012, 01:51 PM:

When downloading takes off, which is now, you can forget quality.

Kiss goodbye to Blu-Ray.

We just about had a format that equaled 16mm at home...kiss it goodbye in the wake of convenience.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on December 08, 2012, 02:13 PM:

I'll stop paying for movies and music when they stop selling a product I can have in my shelf. Downloads I won't pay for

I'll do everything to get enough Super 8 to view again and again

Sad evolution

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 08, 2012, 02:26 PM:

Rob

I think you are right, yesterday my wife bought a USB memory stick. My daughter partner just downloads the movies and told my wife to buy a USB and he will put movies that she wants to see onto it, then its simply inserting the USB into our TV.

I did hear that in the near future, that you might one day be able to go to a kiosk or whatever and pay for the latest movie "all legal" put onto a memory stick of some type, and after watching it at home a couple of times on your own big TV it will then wipe itself.

Graham.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 08, 2012, 02:28 PM:

I don't ever envisage downloads being the only way to view movies. That would eliminate a large market for the product. They ain't stupid over there in Hollywoodland.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on December 08, 2012, 04:13 PM:

Saw West Side Story in 70m last night and it was magnificent. Incredibly bright, clear, and sharp picture. Lots of young people there to put additional spark to the presentation. It was really fun.

Osi-This as at the Egyptian theater here in Hollywood. Looking up at the ceiling they have a scarab beetle in the design. Great theater. Found out the night before Christopher Nolan was there. He likes to shoot only film and will only convert if forced to.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 08, 2012, 05:18 PM:

If the future of home movie viewing is downloading to a cellphone or tablet, count me out. If I can't own it in a physical sense, I don't want it.
Blu Ray is now where super 8 was in its hayday, and represents the best quality obtainable for home movie viewing. To compare it to 16mm is unfair - it is much better than that, and I'm not knocking 16mm. But Blu Ray may not survive if downloading really takes off, so I am buying all the blu ray titles that I like and can afford, while they are still around. Remember the golden years of super 8 only lasted 20 years.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 08, 2012, 05:39 PM:

quote:
Remember the golden years of super 8 only lasted 20 years.

Yes, but it was replaced by another "ownable" medium. My opinion is that there will always be a medium such as DVD (just as an example) available. A huge percentage of the movie-watching public have no dealings at all with computers, cellphones, tablets or any other such devices.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 08, 2012, 05:55 PM:

The down side for the film companys regarding dvd/Blu-ray is that when you buy that disc, its a one off payment to them.

Now if those film folk decide, no more dvd or blu-ray and you have to pay for each home viewing, then they are making more money from you each time you watch it, either in download or memory stick fashion.

Cinemas will be gone, and the film companys will have total control and distribution of the product.

Graham.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 08, 2012, 06:45 PM:

From what I have seen of their product of late Graham,they are
welcome to it.Modern film seems devoted to teenagers who seem
to enjoy what they are given,me, I am more discerning in my
tastes.I made a vow not to return to the cinema,only to break
it to accompany my better half to view the new Bond film.I have
little time for what I deem to be feature length adverts for products I wouldn't be seen dead with.As you rightly say,cinema
was something for everyone and every taste,not now,and no
matter how they try to enliven the experience with gimmicks,
the fact remains that unless you like crude humour and bad
language with endless bodily function jokes,mindless car chases
and dialogue you can't make out,punctuated by explosions
and shootings,then the modern cinema is no place for you.
Back in the '60's,I went as a schoolboy to see the excellent
"Planet of the Apes",that inspired me to study astronomy,what
inspiration does the modern film offer today apart from drug use and violence.Maybe it's just a sad reflection of our society.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 08, 2012, 07:12 PM:

Well Hugh, they do say that cinema reflects the society in which it is made. In which case we are all much worse off than I thought! [Frown]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 08, 2012, 08:08 PM:

I totally agree with what you say about owning a film on something tangible as opposed to a memory chip Paul.The way
things are with the public though, is that it comes across that
all they require for their viewing pleasure are reality shows and
soap operas, with the ability to access missed episodes.I sometimes feel as though I don't belong because I watch none
of them.What is needed are some private cinemas to put on the
musicals and comedies etc of the past as an antidote to the poor entertainment in general that is being served up,don't
get me wrong,not all modern film is bad,there are some good
examples,like "Cowboys & Aliens",pure hokum, but great
entertainment,"Tinker,Tailor,Soldier Spy" a fine modern thriller,
the new Bond wasn't to my taste,but lots of folk enjoyed it.
A simple question I always ask myself is; Do I wish to own it
on film? and the positive answers are getting less and less.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 09, 2012, 05:54 AM:

Paul, I meant my comparison with 16mm only as a complement! [Smile]

You're right though, it can sometimes be a lot better.

Hollywood won't care about losing a format, because downloading will replace it, so the cash still comes in.

DVD Audio and SACD were potentially the best audio formats we were likely to see, but in the wake of MP3 downloading, quality was thrown out over convenience. Same will happen with movies.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 09, 2012, 12:54 PM:

quote:
Hollywood won't care about losing a format, because downloading will replace it, so the cash still comes in.

I disagree.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 09, 2012, 02:03 PM:

The Hollywood studios will not write off any source of revenue. They will continue to support DVD and Blu Ray just as long as it is profitable for them to do so. If you want the discs to keep coming, then go out and buy some.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 09, 2012, 02:03 PM:

You said it, Paul.
[Smile]

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on December 10, 2012, 02:53 AM:

But they won't be a source of major profit because downloading will take over sales of physical media. Record companies generally didn't give a hoot about losing DVD Audio / SACD.

At best, Blu-ray may be a niche format with a limited life.

Now there is actually nothing wrong with the concept of downloading per say, if there remains the option to download at Blu-ray quality. Actually, the idea of a black box under the projector that can download high quality films isn't something I'd object to. My fear is that this won't be the case. Primarily, downloading offers convenience and speed. So whilst you are promised HD content to your big screen TV / Projector, the current reality is that it is very compressed and as such isn't anywhere near Blu-ray quality (internet speeds still aren't really good enough, although always improving, but if you wanted Blu-ray quality, you'd have to sit and wait as it downloaded; a concept that this market isn't really aiming at currently).

Whether distributers will bother with a high quality option if compressed downloading satisfies the mass market is questionable, but let us hope so.

Despite that, TV / Projector manufacturers have pushed forward with 4K displays, so maybe the future is a little more difficult to predict.

But to think that most people won't be watching films at home as downloads in the near future is cuckoo land; all you need is the internet and a modern TV, or an older TV with a box under it, so it isn't about being a computer genius.

By the way, I intend to keep buying as many Blu-rays as possible [Razz]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 10, 2012, 03:13 AM:

I think you're probably right there Rob.Personally I don't think
for a minute the public care about picture quality as much as we
think.I have always found the picyures taken with digital cameras
to be flat with little contrast,but it doesn't seem to bother most
folk,they like the convenience.I side with Paul, in that a tangible
medium,that needs a clean now and then,or just a plastic disc in
an attractive case with notes, has got to be more satisfying than
a memory stick or some other form of download, but I'm speaking
as a collector/ film lover and not the general public.When people
can watch whatever they want,whenever they want, I think
you'll find they no longer want it.A point that does niggle me, is
that people warch TV programmes on their 'phones,PC's or
whatever, WHY AREN'T THEY PAYING A LICENCE FEE.?

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 10, 2012, 03:17 AM:

Rob is right on this one. DVD and Blu-Ray will be niche market eventually, or whatever replaces them will be niche market. My own documentary film production business has been telling me for years people in general do not want a physical disc but if they do want a disc they only want to pay a couple of pounds or don't want to pay for it at all. The future is download and unless fantastic controls go in all the piracy we have today will get worse and worse.

I hardly ever come across a film I want to go and see nowadays despite having very wide taste. The reason for this is because very little is being made and what is being made is largely aimed at teenagers who still go to the cinema in droves.

I too saw Prometheus at the Empire. It was in 3D and looked absolutely awful. So after straining my eyes for two hours I got the Blu-Ray in 2D - it is much better viewing it in the home using a reasonably decent video projector. I used to love going to the Empire, it was a real event just to be there. Now it's just another place to see something I can present better in my own home. Depressing really.

By the way, DVD sales worldwide (including Blu-Ray) are a fraction of what they were a few years ago. It's dying already.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 10, 2012, 01:24 PM:

quote:
By the way, DVD sales worldwide (including Blu-Ray) are a fraction of what they were a few years ago. It's dying already.

Which leaves us where?

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 10, 2012, 01:39 PM:

Back with 9.5mm YAY!! [Smile]

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on December 10, 2012, 03:01 PM:

Like the others have been saying, I highly doubt that downloading will be the "death" of the home movie, because there's always been a "new and better format" around the corner.

16 mm -> 8mm -> Super 8 -> Open reel tape -> Videocassette -> Laserdisc -> VideoDisc -> DVD -> HDDVD/BluRay -> Digital distribution -> ?

I have actually had the pleasure of trying out all of these formats, and they have all been a step forward, but never any "killers".

Yes, digital download/distribution is a spacesaver and much easier, but at a loss of quality, which in the long run won't be something the consumers agree on.

It's like the vinyl renaissance; CDs are out, vinyls are in, why? Because no matter what, a large chunk of the consumers want quality, not convinience!

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 10, 2012, 03:48 PM:

I honestly feel the opposite is true Chris,the public at large want
up to the minute techno,like touch screen aps,ability to play
moronic games or be in constant touch with everyone having
mindless conversations,we've all heard them "I'm on the train now" etc,picture quality is the last thing on their minds.These
are the same people that took instant pictures to their hearts,
video was a Godsend,not to anyone who has had to sit through
hours of someones unedited footage,but it was the fad of the
time and thousands of cine projectors were condemned to the
heap.I believe the public were sold a "pig in a poke" and the
record of a generation will be lost through desintegration of
video tape.The public at large were not told this at the time,
but the "Big boys" knew.The same thing is happening again,
it's all down to a sales pitch,"what we sold you last month is now
old fashioned,take a look at this months baby". So they don't
want you to watch DVDs when they can charge you a fee to
watch a film ONCE.It all boils down to the simple fact that there
is money to be made by selling the public what they already had.Gone are the days of walking into a cinema and watching
a 1940s movie,you'll watch what THEY serve up,which on the
whole isn't very good, but then this is a public that watches
films on mobile phones!So much for picture quality.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 10, 2012, 04:35 PM:

quote:
16 mm -> 8mm -> Super 8 -> Open reel tape -> Videocassette -> Laserdisc -> VideoDisc -> DVD -> HDDVD/BluRay -> Digital distribution -> ?

Hi Chris,

I'm intrigued by the "Open reel tape" in your sequence between Super 8 and Videocassete. What was this?

Posted by Christian Bjorgen (Member # 1780) on December 10, 2012, 05:15 PM:

Michael, I am referring to quadtapes and Type C videotape, which was on reels just like film, but the tapes were magnetic (pretty much big, big videocassettes without the cassette itself). I don't know how big these were in the US and UK, but in Norway they were actually fairly common during the 70s and 80s, since film never really bloomed here in the same scale as the rest of the world.

The problem with these tapes were that the machines used for recording and playing were insanely big, heavy and complex, and the tapes themselves did not fit a whole lot of video (most of the reels sold were 30, 45 or 60 minutes). I remember my uncle having a complete Type C tape recording of a country music concert that was broadcast back in the 70s, but it was missing one of the songs in the middle, as he had to switch reels and prepare the new tape!

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 10, 2012, 05:21 PM:

Ah, I see. I never came across those.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 10, 2012, 06:29 PM:

Alhough downloading films has no appeal for me, I'd appreciate a better grasp of what the quality is like. I note the comments about the compression and the inferiority compared to Blu Ray but could anyone who has viewed downloads via a TV or digital projector please offer a more precise comment. E.g. how do they compare with a DVD?

And if DVD and even Blu Ray sales are in serious decline, is the effort put into creating and providing numerous extras for DVD/Blu Ray releases to some extent misguided, because a large proportion of consumers are not at all troubled if they don't have a chance to see them.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on December 10, 2012, 06:49 PM:

Here are the DVD sales figures for 2012 so far. Do you think the studios are really going to walk away from this kind of money- $107 million for Hunger Games and $20 million for Downton Abbey alone!
http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2012.php

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 11, 2012, 03:03 AM:

Re open reel video tape I’m sure a few on here will remember Sony’s low density open reel system from the mid 1960’s. It gave about a 1 hour record time in black and white.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 11, 2012, 05:39 AM:

I do believe that the comedy celebrity Bob Monkhouse was one
of the first to have this technology in this country at the time,
which enabled him to archive material that would have been lost
to us if he hadn't.One of the reasons I have little time for these
companies screaming about copyrights, they can't be trusted to
look after stuff.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 11, 2012, 05:53 AM:

Sadly very true Hugh. The beeb without doubt are probably the worst offenders which is well documented.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 12, 2012, 02:29 AM:

Paul, I know what you are saying but a few years ago the DVD market was so big the release of a film to the cinema was not particularly important because there was always the secondary market on DVD to fall back on. That is no longer true today and in most cases if a film does not find an audience in cinemas then that's it. If we believe what we were told a few years ago big releases were earning more money on DVD than on theatrical release. Those days have gone and with the modern penchant for piracy and cheap downloads they ain't likely to come back.

Adrian, the quality of downloads and viewing on-line is awful compared to Blu-Ray. But like all these formats, things vary enormously. There are even plenty of sub-standard Blu-Rays out there. I saw the Apollo 13 Blu-Ray on a large LCD TV recently and it looked terrible. Interestingly the PAL LaserDisc looks excellent projected through my six year old Hitachi LCD projector but I think a lot of the Blu-Ray problem was the TV it was being screened on. Bring back 1200 line CRT televisions... having said that, I think there were only ever two produced! But the quality was far superior to these cheap LCD monitors being foisted on people today.

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on December 12, 2012, 05:33 AM:

Talking DVD. One of our local cinemas has now removed the DVD sale machine from the foyer. Another is just about to bin the 35mm projectors and install dig. Perhaps now’s a good time if you have some spare cash, the space to grab a good cinema projector and preserve the equipment and art of projecting 35mm film. The digital switch over is happening very swift now and some of the chaps I used to talk to in the projection boxes have lost jobs.

[ December 13, 2012, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Lee Mannering ]

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 12, 2012, 12:57 PM:

My opinion is there's no way the studios (for want of a better word) will just cut off the potential revenue from older releases. Remember, as I said above, there are a large number of mainly older movie fans, not necessarily cinemagoers, who do not use computers at all, and who will have no interest in downloading anything.
Younger cinema goers will have limited, if any, interest in older releases.
Sorry, but I can never see a time when there won't be some form of collectable medium for movies.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on December 12, 2012, 01:12 PM:

I sincerely hope you are right ... I am the first to jump off the collecting wagon when I can't buy the CD or DVD/Blu-Ray or what not. I need the item stacked neatly in my shelves and looking good. Not a chance of me buying a binary, I either stop watching movies, listening to music or plainly take it for free ... Maybe I stick to seeing the old releases again and again instead, hopefully I'll have some full features in the future, like Alien, Aliens, Star Wars, Empire Strikes, Terminator ...

Was Blade Runner ever on Super 8?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on December 12, 2012, 01:35 PM:

I hope you're right Michael,somehow I feel DVD will be around longer
than we think because they haven't really got anthing as good
to replace it with just yet,folks can still buy budget DVDs or
pay for an expensive imported one.Blu Ray, which was a further
step for better quality, proves my point that the public were not
convinced, and have stayed with "normal" DVD.Downloading
poorer quality product I don't think will bother the majority,as
society has a throw away attitude, and if the prospect of viewing more cheaply even with a drop in quality, I don't think
it'll bother Joe Public one iota.It might even lead to DVD forums
springing up in the future, where they can talk of the good 'ol
days.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on December 12, 2012, 05:29 PM:

Having read all the posts about the future of Bluray and DVD versus downloading from the internet, I am of the opinion that DVDs and Bluray discs will continue until replaced by another "sell through" format of even better quality as has happened in the past. Probably sparking off yet another "Super high definition" format war between rival developers!! They say history always repeats itself!! Even the younger generation will get fed up with downloading unless something is done to dramatically improve the downloading speeds. From my own experience this is getting worse and often it just freezes for minutes on end because of the increased pressure on the broadband phone lines. There are still some areas of the U.K. that do not have broadband and others where the broadband, including my own area, where it is constantly interupted by the engineers re routing whilst changing the main lines from copper wire to fibre optic. There are so many other pieces of "gear" which now also include downloading facilities that there is often a Queue. It can sometimes take up to 5 hours to download a 90 minute film!! Pay per view by satelite is more expensive than buying a DVD. as far as I can work out. Particularly when you also pay for the viewing package. So I don't think the future is as bleak as some of you think for people like us. Wish I could feel the same about Hollywood though. Thank goodness we and other European countries can still produce good films aimed at more mature minded people. I hesitate to use the word "adult" as it can give a different conotation these days!!!
Digital cinema has created problems for the independents who are struggling to continue because of the high cost of going digital and the decreasing number of 35mm prints. Such a shame because the quality of presentation is often more like "the old days" than the multiplexes. Ken Finch.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on December 13, 2012, 04:51 AM:

I used to enjoy going out and looking around the VHS, LaserDisc or DVD shelves in shops for something to purchase to enjoy at home. Now there are very few shops selling DVD or Blu-Ray so for most of us the only option is a few titles stocked in a supermarket. It doesn't really appeal much. Yes, there are a few HMV shops left but in the main that's it.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on December 13, 2012, 01:10 PM:

As a collector of, mainly, movies from 1926-34, I've bought almost exclusively online for quite a few years now. However, I do agree, there are very few high street DVD outlets these days.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on December 13, 2012, 02:39 PM:

Quite the opposite out here, their are heaps of branches of what we call "The Warehouse" its discount stores, they sell everything including zillions of DVDs and slowly more and more Blu-ray titles.

Graham.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on December 13, 2012, 03:59 PM:

In response to the comment by John of the decline of shops selling DVD in the High Street, surely this is not because of the lack of demand for them. Most high street retailers are having a hard time for mainly 3 reasons. 1. the recession. 2. competition from out of town shopping malls and big multi goods retailers like Tesco, Asda etc. and 3. shopping on line. On line sellers like Play.com, Moviemail are the ones I tend to use most. Prices are lower than H.M.V. and are sent post free. I also hire DVDs from Lovefilm if they are ones I wanted to see but unable to get to a cinema. Ken Finch.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2