If film is better than DLP, then why is film so bad in theaters?

[Zeze]

This has bothered me about 5 years ago when DLP started to roll out in movie theaters.

If film is where DLP/Bluray derives from, then why the DLP screening clearly better?

I've heard "Film contains hundred-fold of digital resolution." so many times. Yes that is true, but when you watch a reel film in theater, it's grainy as hell, and details are CLEARLY lacking.

What am I missing here? I think they're referring to the master copy and actual film reels are terribly inferior (it has to be).

Thoughts?

 

[blackangst1]

edit: Let me more directly answer the question. Im not sure where youve read film is better than digital, but theres more to the movie, as you know, than the media. Ive seen DLP movies that were terrible...because the theater wasnt set up correctly, the screen itself was splotchy, etc. On the other hand, Ive seen reel films that were flawless. Typically, though, theaters that are using DLP, and more specifically that are THX, are newer, and have spent more money on the theater itself, thus, screen, audio, etc is better.

 

[Zeze]

I think you need to read up on film making.

What's new that I haven't covered? A non-wise ass answer would be nice.

Yes, it's shot in a film first. But no way that's same quality as theater release. I remember dual-release of same movies (say, Matrix in film and Matrix DLP), the latter was clearly superior.

 

[manimal]

I prefer cams. It simulates reality.

 

[zinfamous]

very easy--digital media has a very firm shelf in terms of max resolution.

Celluloid media--film--has no such "resolution." It can be extrapolated, but since it doesn't involve pixels, it can't be precisely quantified.

IIRC, 35mm film (SLR included) has been extrapolated to roughly 4 or 5x the quality of the current standard with "HD," which 1920x1080.

Now, since there hasn't been a display device that can actually project all of this detail (talking 35mm film projector), all of that existing detail hasn't really been seen--though it is obvious when developing 35mm prints in the dark room.

 

[blackangst1]

What's new that I haven't covered? A non-wise ass answer would be nice.

Yes, it's shot in a film first. But no way that's same quality as theater release. I remember dual-release of same movies (say, Matrix in film and Matrix DLP), the latter was clearly superior.

I edited

 

[Zeze]

edit: Let me more directly answer the question. Im not sure where youve read film is better than digital, but theres more to the movie, as you know, than the media. Ive seen DLP movies that were terrible...because the theater wasnt set up correctly, the screen itself was splotchy, etc. On the other hand, Ive seen reel films that were flawless. Typically, though, theaters that are using DLP, and more specifically that are THX, are newer, and have spent more money on the theater itself, thus, screen, audio, etc is better.

Thanks. You may be onto something.

Movies in DLP were almost always better than reel counterpart in same theater (personal experience)- much brighter contrast, sharper feel, crisp edges, vivid colors, and actually 'better' detail/resolution. If it weren't the case, why the heck would theaters roll out DLP to begin with?

While information stored in film is better, the reel projectors are just shitty vs DLP. Am I right?

If anyone thinks reel is better looking than DLP, that person is delusional.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=869237

 

[dud]

This has bothered me about 5 years ago when DLP started to roll out in movie theaters.

If film is where DLP/Bluray derives from, then why the DLP screening clearly better?

I've heard "Film contains hundred-fold of digital resolution." so many times. Yes that is true, but when you watch a reel film in theater, it's grainy as hell, and details are CLEARLY lacking.

What am I missing here? I think they're referring to the master copy and actual film reels are terribly inferior (it has to be).

Thoughts?

OP, you're doing it all wrong. You should sit at the visual "sweet spot" of the theater. Once you have claimed that seat you should proceed to slouch and then (this is the key part) squint your eyes REALLY hard. If this does not work recommend you do what I did ... stop going to the mockery that Hollywood calls a "movie". Vote with your wallet ... you are being taken advantage of ... and now you know.

 

[Zeze]

OP, you're doing it all wrong. You should sit at the visual "sweet spot" of the theater. Once you have claimed that seat you should proceed to slouch and then (this is the key part) squint your eyes REALLY hard. If this does not work recommend you do what I did ... stop going to the mockery that Hollywood calls a "movie". Vote with your wallet ... you are being taken advantage of ... and now you know.

I'm going to send you to the fetus room.

 

[blackangst1]

Thanks. You may be onto something.

Movies in DLP were almost always better than reel counterpart in same theater (personal experience)- much brighter contrast, sharper feel, crisp edges, vivid colors, and actually 'better' detail/resolution. If it weren't the case, why the heck would theaters roll out DLP to begin with?

While information stored in film is better, the reel projectors are just shitty vs DLP. Am I right?

If anyone thinks reel is better looking than DLP, that person is delusional.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=869237

I believe, if all else is equal, we probably wouldnt see or hear a difference (THX excluded). Unfortunately, thats a tough test because although you could find a theater playing one movie in DLP, and another on film, the two theaters will be quite different most likely. It's like vinyl. Technically, vinyl sounds better than digital. However, in the real world, you really need to spend ALOT of money to get that audio quality. So its also a matter of practicality.

 

[zokudu]

I believe, if all else is equal, we probably wouldnt see or hear a difference (THX excluded). Unfortunately, thats a tough test because although you could find a theater playing one movie in DLP, and another on film, the two theaters will be quite different most likely. It's like vinyl. Technically, vinyl sounds better than digital. However, in the real world, you really need to spend ALOT of money to get that audio quality. So its also a matter of practicality.

Vinyl does not sound better than digital.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

 

[scott916]

I think the differences are more likely due to DLP projectors being newer with newer lenses, more modern lighting technology, etc. Film projectors have been around forever, and theaters had less incentive to update them. If you put two projectors with identical optics and lighting, one with film and one with a DLP setup, I think it's likely that more would prefer film.

 

[Zeze]

I believe, if all else is equal, we probably wouldnt see or hear a difference (THX excluded). Unfortunately, thats a tough test because although you could find a theater playing one movie in DLP, and another on film, the two theaters will be quite different most likely. It's like vinyl. Technically, vinyl sounds better than digital. However, in the real world, you really need to spend ALOT of money to get that audio quality. So its also a matter of practicality.

Okay. Let's stop beating around the bush here. DLP is clearly effin' better than reel in theaters.

And I'm wondering WHY if film is claimed to be superior.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Okay. Let's stop beating around the bush here. DLP is clearly effin' better than reel in theaters.

And I'm wondering WHY if film is claimed to be superior.

Gotta differentiate between the technical and practical reasons one would be better over the other.

As mentioned, reel film has the potential to contain much more data, however finding a theater that has cared to invest in the modern projection equipment required to take advantage of such is rare. Even then, in practice, even in ideal conditions for both scenarios, you're not likely to notice a difference.

 

[zokudu]

Okay. Let's stop beating around the bush here. DLP is clearly effin' better than reel in theaters.

And I'm wondering WHY if film is claimed to be superior.

Maybe because theaters don't/can't display film at a resolution where you would be able to perceive any difference in their quality?

 

[CZroe]

You were watching poorly reproduced film on a poor setup.

 

[blackangst1]

Vinyl does not sound better than digital.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Nice link. it says "There is currently no text in this page"

I suggest you start HERE

Okay. Let's stop beating around the bush here. DLP is clearly effin' better than reel in theaters.

And I'm wondering WHY if film is claimed to be superior.

Well, DLP theaters in general have newer and better equipment. I dont think its a matter of the original media.

 

[imagoon]

In the theater I worked at, film was typically poor because: Cheap $100 lenses, cheap Chinese bulbs, poor, never cleaned parabolics, a policy of "fix it when it breaks, screw regular maintenance."

Basically DLP is new so the they are in better shape. I have already been to theaters where the green was no longer aligned with the red and blue. (Mirror was out of alignment somehow...)

Basically film will look better if you have identical conditions and the projectionist gives a crap about the presentation. 35MM still has a wider color range and higher "resolution" than even 4K DLP. The problem tends to be finding someone who cares, uses things like nice Osram bulbs [better color range, and brighter per watt], cleans the gear, aims the optics properly, uses quality lenses, keeps the traps maintained etc.

I used to take pride in my work. However you could tell when they built the building the theater company didn't care because the projection windows were not even aligned with the screens making it impossible to align the optics and square the image without distortion or very expensive trapezoidal correction lenses.

Mean while DLP allows you to cheat and adjust the alignments using the mirror arrays at the cost of some DPI / distortion.

 

[Sonikku]

Sometimes all that grain is supposed to be there...

 

[gorobei]

as others have stated, calibration and maintenance account for most of the difference.

film resolution is higher as the pixel equivalent is the number of silver nitrate/halide crystals exposed in the film emulsion. there are way more silver crystals/inch than pixels/inch. film also has a logarithmic exposure scale compared to digital's linear scale, so there is a wider contrast between darks and lights.

the main reason why film doesnt look better in most situations, is that film is temporary in nature. a brand new print will look great on a calibrated setup, but over repeated showings scratches will develop, tracking notches will wear, the film material itself will degrade. prints are like car tires, the quality/performance will never be the same day 1 vs day 1000.

 

[zokudu]

Nice link. it says "There is currently no text in this page"

I suggest you start HERE




Well, DLP theaters in general have newer and better equipment. I dont think its a matter of the original media.

Way to ignore how VB cuts off the last parenthesis. Here you go sorry thinking for half a second was too hard. Not to mention the wiki article you linked is flagged for

Its neutrality is disputed

 

[brianmanahan]

it is because analog has infinite pixels where as digital has a limted amount, but we dont have good enough screens to display all those pixels yet, plus the digital does do color better so in the end it looks like digital's better, but it's really not. you can't beat infinite.

 

[Gooberlx2]

it is because analog has infinite pixels where as digital has a limted amount, but we dont have good enough screens to display all those pixels yet, plus the digital does do color better so in the end it looks like digital's better, but it's really not. you can't beat infinite.

Well, it's not infinite. Film's limit is going to be the smallest meaningful clump of silver halide molecules.

 

[gorobei]

it is because analog has infinite pixels where as digital has a limted amount, but we dont have good enough screens to display all those pixels yet, plus the digital does do color better so in the end it looks like digital's better, but it's really not. you can't beat infinite.

definitely not infinite. cant remember the exact number but film was something like 12k res, but most of the time you cant use much more than 8k. since most film is digitally processed for color and editing, you really arent getting much more than 4k output on most media (tv or non imax film)

 

[Arkaign]

In the theater I worked at, film was typically poor because: Cheap $100 lenses, cheap Chinese bulbs, poor, never cleaned parabolics, a policy of "fix it when it breaks, screw regular maintenance."

Basically DLP is new so the they are in better shape. I have already been to theaters where the green was no longer aligned with the red and blue. (Mirror was out of alignment somehow...)

Basically film will look better if you have identical conditions and the projectionist gives a crap about the presentation. 35MM still has a wider color range and higher "resolution" than even 4K DLP. The problem tends to be finding someone who cares, uses things like nice Osram bulbs [better color range, and brighter per watt], cleans the gear, aims the optics properly, uses quality lenses, keeps the traps maintained etc.

I used to take pride in my work. However you could tell when they built the building the theater company didn't care because the projection windows were not even aligned with the screens making it impossible to align the optics and square the image without distortion or very expensive trapezoidal correction lenses.

Mean while DLP allows you to cheat and adjust the alignments using the mirror arrays at the cost of some DPI / distortion.

OP, this is the definitive answer.

A good film experience requires :

A great print/copy on high quality film from the studio
Proper storage/delivery/unloading of said film at theatre
A good quality projector, bulb, lens, and proper maintenance/setup of said items
Good storage and treatment of the film during its run at the theatre
A good operator or operator(s), for the above two items to succeed
A good quality screen and no improper lighting (some theatres are horrible with ambient lighting that never turns off and can be quite detrimental to the experience)
etc, etc, etc.

Going digital takes most of those worries away with basically off-the-shelf stuff that is much less maintenance intensive, is easier to set up, and as the media material is digital you just don't have to worry about a poor 'print' or the issues that can arise with casual/unskilled/abusive treatment by underpaid operators.

Very high quality film experiences will be ever more rare as time goes by, the last two I can think of were both magnificent restorations, Lawrence of Arabia and Casablanca, both of which were shown in proper glory with care and excellent equipment at a local arts theatre.