Queen St Cinema, rant....

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Queen St Cinema, rant....

PaulZA

314 posts

Ultimate Geek

#172090 11-May-2015 17:34

Hi guys.

I rarely ever go to the Queen St Cinemas.

Last time I was there, before Saturday was in 2011, time before that was in 2002.
Been to the IMAX a few times, afterwards but that's irrelevant, as it's not part of the actual multiplex upstairs.

We paid $18.50 for a ticket to see Pitch Perfect 2, Cinema itself was as comfortable as always, but it's the projector itself I'm complaining about. It wasn't the full aspect ratio of the screen, and it was essentially the same as watching it on an oversized LCD display, with a decent size of the screen not being used, and essentially center cut.

If they want to charge us, at premium prices, please make sure we have a premium viewing experience.

The cinema multiplex was designed for 35mm film, and should have remained with 35mm film, it outperforms digital in every way, and the issue I mentioned proves it.

Since the studios don't have to pay huge costs, freighting the 35mm films, to the movie houses anymore, such a reduction in costs, should be seen, in the ways of cheaper movie tickets, and also digital isn't the same performance as 35mm.

Why see a movie in a cinema, if you get the same performance you can get at home, except slightly blown up....

I don't get it.

1 | 2

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1302126 11-May-2015 17:45

The % of the screen filled by the movie is going to depend on whether it's filmed in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 - what was this movie? I'm assuming 1.85:1?

There is nothing broken, it's just that different producers and directors have their favourite aspect ratio - and many are now filmed in 1.85:1 to avoid having bars when transferred to Blu Ray/DVD or online due to people now watching a lot more content on smaller screens.

The issue also has nothing to do with film vs digital - film is either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 as well depending on what it's shot in.

PaulZA

314 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1302244 11-May-2015 20:14

Assuming the majority of Cinemas, are optimally designed, for the same aspect ratio?

Why doesn't they make it mandatory?

Only honest exception, would be remastering a 35mm film, for Imax projection.
Cinemas should at least offer the full premium movie experience, which includes the correct aspect ratio.

We pay for it, and we should by rights expect it...
Standards have dropped..

Jase2985

13459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1302276 11-May-2015 21:26

its not the cinema its the film companies that you should have a problem with, the cinemas just buy what they have to offer, and unfortunately they offer 2 different aspect ratios so you wont always win when it comes to a movie.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1302279 11-May-2015 21:36

"...should have remained with 35mm film...". Really? Isn't that like comparing a Flac audio with a cassette tape? I know which I would rather listen to and/or watch.

As already pointed out your beef is with the film studio. I think your rant is misguided.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1302281 11-May-2015 21:38

Not a fan of going to the movies myself these days. The only advantage they have is that they get the movies first. One theatre I went to recently had terrible projectors, where you could see the pixels. Much prefer film, even though sometimes it isn't that sharp.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1302326 11-May-2015 21:42

scuwp: "...should have remained with 35mm film...". Really? Isn't that like comparing a Flac audio with a cassette tape? I know which I would rather listen to and/or watch.

As already pointed out your beef is with the film studio. I think your rant is misguided.

Movies shot digitally potentially have issues as technology advances. Look at TV shot in the 80's and 90's where the picture is very low resolution, and there is o way to upscale it. Where with film, you can generate higher resolution digital movies from it. So you get movies shot in the 70's that are far better quality than video show 30 years later.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1302343 11-May-2015 22:29

Except when you make film big its grain starts to show, making it look aweful. Now they have digital from end to end they just need to get the hobbit frame rate across the board and cinema might be tollerable

Richard rich.ms

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1302425 12-May-2015 07:48

PaulZA: Assuming the majority of Cinemas, are optimally designed, for the same aspect ratio? Why doesn't they make it mandatory? Only honest exception, would be remastering a 35mm film, for Imax projection.
Cinemas should at least offer the full premium movie experience, which includes the correct aspect ratio.

We pay for it, and we should by rights expect it...
Standards have dropped..

I'm still completely confused by what your issue is - because based on everything you've described there isn't actually one.

Virtually all cinema screens are 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In the old days this was known as "cinemascope", as it was double the existing 1.33:1 (4:3) aspect ratio that was the norm at the time.

Movies these days are typically filmed in either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 (16:9) and the choice of format is going to depend on a number of factors, which as I explained above will depend a lot on the target market and the equipment used to film it. If you watch 2.35:1 content on a regular 16:9 tablet, computer or phone you need bars at the top and bottom to ensure the aspect ratio stays correct. This is something that annoys a lot of people, so a lot of content is either remastered, or a lot filmed in 1.85:1 in the first place.

If a movie is filmed or mastered in 1.85:1it's not possible for it to completely fill a 2.35:1 screen. If it did it would be in the wrong aspect ratio (aka fat-o-vision).

kiwiharry

1030 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#1302480 12-May-2015 09:14

Hopefully not too off topic, but I recently sent an email complaint to Universal Pictures NZ in regards to the Spongebob movie.

Movie trailers and print advertising, such as on the back of buses referred to the movie as Spongebob, Sponge Out Of Water 3D. During the first week of the school holidays, we decided to go and see this movie. But of the 27 screenings in Auckland on that day, only 1 was in 3D. This was only 8 days after it launched. I checked other days and there was only 1 screening in Auckland per day in 3D, which coincidentally was at Queen Street.

On the way home after the movie, I noticed the promotions on the radio referred to the movie as 3D.

I complained to Universal stating that the marketing of the movie as 3D wasn't being backed up by the screening sessions. Never heard back from them.

If you can't laugh at yourself then you probably shouldn't laugh at others.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1302505 12-May-2015 09:36

scuwp: "...should have remained with 35mm film...". Really? Isn't that like comparing a Flac audio with a cassette tape? I know which I would rather listen to and/or watch.

As already pointed out your beef is with the film studio. I think your rant is misguided.

Digital can imitate, but not recreate the beauty of film. And, thanks to directors like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino, 35mm film will remain an option for some many years forward (link below).

Yes, digital is way cheaper, faster, easier to use and edit, more versatile ... all these things, but aesthetically, it has yet to recreate the beauty of 35mm film.

So, no , not like comparing flac with a cassette.

http://www.avclub.com/article/35mm-film-will-live-thanks-christopher-nolan-quent-214846

sultanoswing

814 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1303229 13-May-2015 01:22

35mm? pft.

You should see a top shelf print of a 70mm pic sometime. Bewdiful.

MarkX

109 posts

Master Geek

#1304595 13-May-2015 15:20

sbiddle:
PaulZA: Assuming the majority of Cinemas, are optimally designed, for the same aspect ratio? Why doesn't they make it mandatory? Only honest exception, would be remastering a 35mm film, for Imax projection.
Cinemas should at least offer the full premium movie experience, which includes the correct aspect ratio.

We pay for it, and we should by rights expect it...
Standards have dropped..

I'm still completely confused by what your issue is - because based on everything you've described there isn't actually one.

Virtually all cinema screens are 2.35:1 aspect ratio. In the old days this was known as "cinemascope", as it was double the existing 1.33:1 (4:3) aspect ratio that was the norm at the time.

Movies these days are typically filmed in either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 (16:9) and the choice of format is going to depend on a number of factors, which as I explained above will depend a lot on the target market and the equipment used to film it. If you watch 2.35:1 content on a regular 16:9 tablet, computer or phone you need bars at the top and bottom to ensure the aspect ratio stays correct. This is something that annoys a lot of people, so a lot of content is either remastered, or a lot filmed in 1.85:1 in the first place.

If a movie is filmed or mastered in 1.85:1it's not possible for it to completely fill a 2.35:1 screen. If it did it would be in the wrong aspect ratio (aka fat-o-vision).

MarkX

109 posts

Master Geek

#1304597 13-May-2015 15:22

I totally agree with you. First movie had an aspect ratio of 1:85:1 so very likely that the second movie will be in the same aspect ratio so there is no issue with the cinema.