Here in Portland, Oregon we have a small digital multiplex, The Living
Room Theaters, which show largely foreign and indy fare. It's a nice
little venue with bar and great noshes. Currently, the are showing 2
classics in HD. 1 is 2001: ASO and CASABLANCA. Unfortunately, I do not
really like the projection in this cinema. I had an experience last year
where we viewed a funny Spanish farce called UNCONSCIOUS and it just did
not look sharp and it was really lacking in any punch or brilliance
(contrast or brightness).

If these were showing across the river (The Columbia) at Vancouver's
digital theatre, Cinetopia, I'd definitely make the trip. Cinetopia has
better projection and sound plus larger screens in a "luxury" enviroment.

However, I love both these film's so much that I would hate to see them
shown in a venue where projection is marginal despite the nice creature
comforts the theatre can provide.

I would still give The Living Room Theater my business for other unusual
titles that might not get shown elsewhere, but I can have a better
experience with these titles in my home theatre.
Do you know anything about the digital projection in either of these

It's like buying a ticket to see a movie "on film," without knowing if
it's 8mm or iMAX.

Lincoln

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:41:17 +0100, Lincoln Spector
notmyreal@address.com> wrote:

[snip "Digital Projection"]

It's like buying a ticket to see a movie "on film," without knowing if
it's 8mm or iMAX.

That's a great comparison, thanks!

Then again: "Digital" must be better in any way, shape, or form!

Just joking!
You mean it isn't?

Lincoln

Martin

PS:

Just thought about it a little more: Usually you were meant to think that
"projection" equals at least good ole nice 35mm film. Any other format
would/should be indicated.

With "Digital Projection" you know exactly NIL, NULL, NADA about the
quality you'll get. That's progress I guess.
Well, to be fair, I have paid to see movies in revival houses and only

Needless to say, even if there were a standard, things can still go wrong:
With film it was grain, sharpness and brightness, but with digital
(especially DVD and the inferior, in comparison to 4k, 2k systems) you
might get even wrong shadows, wrong gray scale, wrong colors, artefacts of
all sorts like interlaced instead of progressive (seen that in an
otherwise realy nice presentation, ruined it for some parts!)...
The best projection format in the world can't survive a bad print and an

Okay, look at it this way: With any medium, more physical surface area in
the recording media generally means a better picture. But given the same
physical surface area, digital IS better. I mean, could you image the
quality of a feature film stored photo-chemically on a five-inch disc?

Lincoln

Martin

PS:

Just thought about it a little more: Usually you were meant to think that
"projection" equals at least good ole nice 35mm film. Any other format
would/should be indicated.

With "Digital Projection" you know exactly NIL, NULL, NADA about the
quality you'll get. That's progress I guess.
Well, to be fair, I have paid to see movies in revival houses and only
discovered when the curtains opened that it was a 16mm print.


Needless to say, even if there were a standard, things can still go wrong:
With film it was grain, sharpness and brightness, but with digital
(especially DVD and the inferior, in comparison to 4k, 2k systems) you
might get even wrong shadows, wrong gray scale, wrong colors, artefacts of
all sorts like interlaced instead of progressive (seen that in an
otherwise realy nice presentation, ruined it for some parts!)...
The best projection format in the world can't survive a bad print and an
inept projectionist.

Lincoln

Lincoln Spector <notmyreal@address.com> wrote:

Okay, look at it this way: With any medium, more physical surface area in
the recording media generally means a better picture. But given the same
physical surface area, digital IS better. I mean, could you image the
quality of a feature film stored photo-chemically on a five-inch disc?

Yes! Thanks to the miracle of the Urban Spirograph, which in 1923
took a 10.5-inch disc of celluloid carrying 1,200 frames in a spiral of
12 rows, printed down from a 35mm cine original. I tell you, this is
the home distribution format of the future.
Cool! I didn't know such a thing ever existed. thanks, Scott.

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fq2ie6$r3c$1@panix2.panix.com...
Lincoln Spector <notmyreal@address.com> wrote:

Okay, look at it this way: With any medium, more physical surface area in
the recording media generally means a better picture. But given the same
physical surface area, digital IS better. I mean, could you image the
quality of a feature film stored photo-chemically on a five-inch disc?

Yes! Thanks to the miracle of the Urban Spirograph, which in 1923
took a 10.5-inch disc of celluloid carrying 1,200 frames in a spiral of
12 rows, printed down from a 35mm cine original. I tell you, this is
the home distribution format of the future.
Cool! I didn't know such a thing ever existed. thanks, Scott.

(For those who are curious, you'll find something about it at
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/video/Urban_Spirograph.htm)

Lincoln

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:25:25 GMT, "Lincoln Spector"
notmyreal@address.com> wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fq2ie6$r3c$1@panix2.panix.com...
Lincoln Spector <notmyreal@address.com> wrote:

Okay, look at it this way: With any medium, more physical surface area in
the recording media generally means a better picture. But given the same
physical surface area, digital IS better. I mean, could you image the
quality of a feature film stored photo-chemically on a five-inch disc?

Yes! Thanks to the miracle of the Urban Spirograph, which in 1923
took a 10.5-inch disc of celluloid carrying 1,200 frames in a spiral of
12 rows, printed down from a 35mm cine original. I tell you, this is
the home distribution format of the future.
Cool! I didn't know such a thing ever existed. thanks, Scott.

(For those who are curious, you'll find something about it at
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/video/Urban_Spirograph.htm)

Amazing. Thanks from me too, Scott. I wonder how bright that image
would have been on a screen, given the technology of the day.