[LINK] A movie lover’s plea: Let there be light

[Kim Holburn]

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/05/22/misuse_of_3_d_digital_lens_leaves_2_d_movies_in_the_dark/?page=full

> As if rising ticket prices and chatterbox patrons weren't enough, moviegoers in the Boston area are being left in the dark thanks to the regular misuse of the lenses on new digital projection equipment at many of the region's major theater chains. But almost no one at the theaters or their corporate headquarters is willing to talk about it.

.....

> Why, then, do so many of the movies look so terrible? This particular night "Limitless,'' "Win Win,'' and "Source Code'' all seemed strikingly dim and drained of colors. "Jane Eyre,'' a film shot using candles and other available light, appeared to be playing in a crypt. A visit to the Regal Fenway two weeks later turned up similar issues: "Water for Elephants'' and "Madea's Big Happy Family'' were playing in brightly lit 35mm prints and, across the hall, in drastically darker digital versions.

.....

> "When you're running a 2-D film, that polarization device has to be taken out of the image path. If they're not doing that, it's crazy, because you've got a big polarizer that absorbs 50 percent of the light.''
> 
> They're not doing that, and there's an easy way to tell. If you're in a theater playing a digital print (the marquee at the ticket booth should have a "D'' next to the film's name), look back at the projection booth.
> 
> If you see two beams of light, one stacked on top of the other, that's a Sony with the 3-D lens still in place. If there's a single beam, it's either a Sony with the 3-D lens removed or a different brand of digital projector, such as Christie or Barco.
> 
> The difference can be extreme. Chapin Cutler, a cofounder of the high-end specialty projection company Boston Light & Sound, estimates that a film projected through a Sony with the 3-D lens in place and other adjustments not made can be as much as 85 percent darker than a properly projected film.
> 
> That's dark enough for Hollywood director Peter Farrelly to complain loudly when his comedy "Hall Pass'' had its promotional screening in two of the Common's theaters prior to opening this past February. Farrelly went from one screening where the 3-D lens had been removed to a second in which the lens was still on, and he couldn't believe his eyes.
> 
> "I walked into the room and I could barely see, and my stomach dropped,'' the filmmaker said. "The first screening looked spectacular and the second was so dark, it was daytime versus nighttime. If they're doing this for a big screening, I can't imagine what they do for regular customers. That's no way to see a movie.''
> 
> So why aren't theater personnel simply removing the 3-D lenses? The answer is that it takes time, it costs money, and it requires technical know-how above the level of the average multiplex employee. James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert's Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, "and if you don't do it right, the machine will shut down on you.'' The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn't made and "audiences are getting shortchanged.''


....



-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request