 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.135
In Reply to: "maybe someday the home video experience will equal the movie going experience. " posted by Jack G on April 3, 2007 at 05:08:34:
I'm talking about the difference between real film projected on a large screen and home video. The difference is night and day. IMO video is still quite pathetic and barely represents the original image. Film IS the original image. I suppose people like to use complaints about sticky floors and noisy kids as a rationalization for investing so much money into such vastly inferior technology. What next? No live music because the audience coughs too often? I do have news for you guys. There are projectionists that actually know how to do an excellent job of focusing the projector and keeping it in prime running condition. There are theaters that actually patrol for people being disruptive and there are theaters that actually mop the floor.
Follow Ups:
I understand the difference between the two, just as you understand that not all theaters are showing film at its best.> > > there are projectionists that actually know how to do an excellent job of focusing the projector and keeping it in prime running condition. There are theaters that actually patrol for people being disruptive and there are theaters that actually mop the floor. < < <
I'm sure that is true, but not at the theaters near me. If they are in your area, enjoy it while you can, for I beleive they are a shrinking minority.
I stand by my comments. I got tired of out of focus movies, torn splice joints, crappy sound, and generally miserable watching conditions. I don't like that expereince. If its better for you, then consider yourself fortunate.
Jack
"I understand the difference between the two,"Then you should know it has nothing to do with sticky floors or noisy kids.
" just as you understand that not all theaters are showing film at its best."
Nor are all home theaters showing video at their best. You point?
> > > Then you should know it has nothing to do with sticky floors or noisy kids. < < <
Being part of the theater environment, they certainly are part of the "theater experience", albeit a distracting part.The distractions are just that, and would be more likely to be tolerated if the films were pristine prints, sharply in focus with decent sound etc.
Unfortunately, since most movies aren't the above, there is little reason why I should have to deal with the annoying distractions.
As I said earlier, if your local theaters are more pleasant than mine, by all means enjoy them.
Jack
"Being part of the theater environment, they certainly are part of the "theater experience", albeit a distracting part."No they are a part of certain experiences. They are not a part of all. Heck you can have that problem in someone's home too.
"The distractions are just that, and would be more likely to be tolerated if the films were pristine prints, sharply in focus with decent sound etc."Soemthing that I have already explained is a reality in this world. Along with theaters that enforce a code of conduct that prevents audience based distractions. But you are still dwelling on an issue I was not trying to address. I guess even after I spell it out you insist on harping on issues that are utterly irelevant of image quality and are totally circumstantial and far from universal.
"Unfortunately, since most movies aren't the above,"As explained to you before. Ther are theaters that use the best projection equipment and the best prints etc. and enforce a code of conduct and clean their floors.
" there is little reason why I should have to deal with the annoying distractions."You'd rather settle for a vastly inferior picture. Fine your choice. Doesn't change my point. That being there is a huge divide between the quality available from film and home theater.
"As I said earlier, if your local theaters are more pleasant than mine, by all means enjoy them."I do
nt
...than the lowly 16 bit CD, it's just a different experience with different trade-offs.AuPh
> > > They are not a part of all. < < <
True, but they have been part of mine, and that effect *my* watching.> > > Heck you can have that problem in someone's home too. < < <
Then I won't go back to that person's house to watch movies.> > > But you are still dwelling on an issue I was not trying to address < < <
But I am trying to address it, because for ME, the watching environment is a big part of the experience, but maybe not for others. I don't know why you keep avoiding this issue.> > > I guess even after I spell it out you insist on harping on issues that are utterly irelevant of image quality < < <
For me, there is more to the "theater experience" than just image quality. I don't understand why you cannot grasp this.> > > Ther are theaters that use the best projection equipment and the best prints etc. and enforce a code of conduct and clean their floors < < <
We've been through this-I should have specified *in my area*, not the entire galaxy. Again, I am speaking of MY experiences, not all of mankind's.> > > You'd rather settle for a vastly inferior picture. < < <
I was settling when I paid for blurry movies at my local theater, but no more.> > > That being there is a huge divide between the quality available from film and home theater. < < <
THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE THEATER IS PROPERLY SET UP AND THE MOVIE IS IN FOCUS, SOUND NOT DISTORTED etc. Your locals may be, but not all are. In my area, its hit and miss.
Jack
> > > But you are still dwelling on an issue I was not trying to address < < <
"But I am trying to address it,"Then you are trying to change the subject. Feel free to start another thread if you find this other unrelated issue interesting. But it has *nothing* to do with my comments on picture quality film v. home theater.
"because for ME, the watching environment is a big part of the experience, but maybe not for others. I don't know why you keep avoiding this issue."
Because, as stated so many times now, it isn't what I was talking about. Please go back and check out the context. The question was whether or not improvements in bluray over DVD were worth extra money when it comes to old films. WTF does noisy kids have to do with it? You misunderstood my comment about the film going experience. Maybe that was my fault but I clarified. You still hung onto the misunderstanding like a pitbull.If it is a subject that is near and dear to you please feel free to discuss it in a new thread or an old thread where it is relevant. seriously, it has no relevance here in a discussion on the value of bluray over DVD when it comes to old films.
> > > I guess even after I spell it out you insist on harping on issues that are utterly irelevant of image quality < < <
"For me, there is more to the "theater experience" than just image quality. I don't understand why you cannot grasp this."No, I do grasp it. That is why I made myself clear ther second time around. You just won't let it go.
> > > Ther are theaters that use the best projection equipment and the best prints etc. and enforce a code of conduct and clean their floors < < <
"We've been through this-I should have specified *in my area*, not the entire galaxy. Again, I am speaking of MY experiences, not all of mankind's."OK fine, you have shitty theaters where you live. that sucks. I feel for you. Now can we try to stay on subject now that you have clarified your points and I have clarified mine?
> > > That being there is a huge divide between the quality available from film and home theater. < < <
"THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF THE THEATER IS PROPERLY SET UP AND THE MOVIE IS IN FOCUS, SOUND NOT DISTORTED etc. Your locals may be, but not all are. In my area, its hit and miss."OK lets try to put this back into context. the huge divide between film and home video is irrelevant to any particular inferior experiences you have encountered. the question at hand was about Bluray v. DVD. As media they are both vastly inferior to the source, film. Therefore what I was trying to say with a little flair that got taken way out of context was that even with old films any real improvement in video playback has aesthetic merit because they all have a long way to go before they are of the same quality as one can get from film projection. even older films shot on inferior stock and degraded by age.
You said "OK lets try to put this back into context. the huge divide between film and home video is irrelevant to any particular inferior experiences you have encountered. the question at hand was about Bluray v. DVD. As media they are both vastly inferior to the source, film. "Correct, both Bluray and DVD, as media, are inferior to the source, film.
That does not mean that Bluray and DVD, as viewed in the home, are always going to be inferior to film as viewed in a theatre. Good home video can beat bad film projection at a theatre. We do need to distinguish between the theory and the implementation. While one theory may have advantages over another, what counts in real life is the implementation. Implement the good theory badly and you can get crap. Implement the poorer theory well and you can have something quite good.
The "movie experience" is what you get in real life. If your local theatres aren't good, the movie experience you get won't be good. If you only get a good experience when you visit another drive across town or visit somewhere else, then of course you're going to prefer your own HT setup if it's been setup well and is delivering high quality playback. You'd be mad not to. It's simply pointless preferring an experience you can't get so if good film playback is rarely an option for you, going to the theatre is not going to be the way you usually prefer watching a movie, even if you jump at the chance to go to a good theatre when you can.
This is really a coffee vs tea argument and you're missing the point. I prefer coffee over tea, but I do enjoy both. I don't drink tea as often as I drink coffe, but I enjoy it when I do. I drink tea for different reasons than those for why I drink coffee. I drink coffee for the taste and the caffeine. I drink tea because it suits some foods better if I'm having it with a meal, because I'm having a cup with a friend who enjoys tea more than coffee and it's a social thing, because a good cup of coffee isn't available at the time, or because sometimes I just feel like a cup of tea at that time. Regardless of whether you prefer the theatre or home video, you can still enjoy the other and people do have valid reasons for preferring one over the other, even if their preference disagrees with yours.
Some of my reasons for preferring home video over the theatre which haven't yet been canvassed in the sticky carpet and annoying audience debate:
- I can watch what I like when I want to. I don't have to choose from a limited range of films currently showing, or fit in with theatre session times.
- home is much better for double bills and late night movies. I can turn things off and walk to the bedroom without having to get in the car and drive.
David Aiken
I need to get some food in me.:-(
Jack
I'll try to be more direct and less poetic next time. That way I won't get others off the track.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
