Film critic Ty Burr of The Boston Globe has written a huge article on this recent trend with theaters:
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.
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.’’
Filmmakers and film critics might notice such things, but how about the common joe?
Educating audiences and overcoming this inertia can be difficult. Boston Light & Sound’s Cutler said, “We have a tendency to walk in the door, we’ve paid our money, bought our popcorn, and we want to sit down and watch something. We’re loath to get up and leave because we’ve put that much effort in.’’
Generally speaking, you should be getting a bright, crisp picture, and not the kind of picture you would get as if you were wearing 3D glasses.
Have you seen a movie which you had to squint your eyes to see what was going on in the film? Do you care if you do notice?
I can’t say I’ve had this problem with 2-D films yet, but I do notice the darker picture with 3-D, which is one of the reasons I opt for 2-D over 3-D. The gimmick just isn’t that much of an incentive.
Eh. Rodney. Projectionists are paid minimum wage in most cases. Most large to medium size chains dont even employ projectionists. Most theatres nowadays are manager-operated, meaning the managers are the projectionists. Cutbacks in spending force theatre managers like myself to work alone most days with one staff member. Now I work at a low to moderate attendance theatre so its not hard for me to change the lenses. But some chains have cut back so much on staffing that at a busy theatre with one mananger operator things can get lost in the shuffle when that manager is required to do most if not all the jobs at a theatre on a particular day. We are the front lines of the movie industry and take the most flak when things go wrong. So pile on Rodney. Pile on.
Perhaps where you live William. I know some projectionists from a local theater chain here. The managers are the only people paid better than them. They are the only union staff here. I based my guesses on that information. I also stated it was a speculation, not absolute fact.
Not sure what you mean by “pile on”.
With the advent of 3D (or the wave of the future as James Cameron likes to believe) the lashing out by customers i.e. “i hate 3D, why do I have to pay more”, “why does every damn movie have to be in 3D” and the evre popular, “you just want more money” is what I mean by piling on. The studios crank these out not concerning themselves with what the customers truly want. We hear those complaints not the studio heads or you critic types. 3D has made doing my job an absolute bear and for what reason? 90% of people I talk to dont like it. People turned around and left when they came for Thor 3D and found out it was in 3D. It’s the exhibitors who get criticized not the studios and it’s getting very old
I have only seen one film that truly impressed me in 3D and that was Avatar. Just as an example I saw Priest in 2D and I was totally fine with that. A couple days later a friend wanted to see priest and asked me to tag along so sure, I saw it again in 3D and I can tell you it didnt make one bit of difference. I wasnt blown away by the 3D effects and I didnt walk out of the theater thinking “I should always see the 3D version only” Truth is I could care less.
2D for me
If I noticed I would report that theater to its corporate headquarters. To be honest I have done this in past on a theater who didnt change an old bulb in the projector. End result was I watched an entire movie with blurry picture and green lines running down the screen during certain scenes of the movie. I complained when I left theater and sent an email to their corporate office when I returned home.
I was sent free movie tickets and received an apology call from the manager of the facility a couple days afterward. Nice to know some corporate offices take there business serious.
Never had this problem due to the fact that none of the theaters use Sony projectors. Mostly Christie with a few using Dolby and I think those are just a simple few button pushes to switch the lens.
On a similar note, 3D projectors are supposed to show films brighter in 3D than in 2D to off set the glasses. Plus the house lights are supposed to be dimmer. I am only familiar with the Dolby brand and all that is preset by the technician when being installed. There are still a lot of factors that will go into this still, like if the projector is meant for a smaller house but being used for a bigger screen, that will make it dimmer as well and I know one theater owner that did so this to save money.
whoops, wish I could edit that. ‘None of the theaters in my area use Sony’.
I just saw pirates 4 in 3D. It was crap, since a lot the the movie happens on nightime, it was so dark that you just couldn’t see the fight sequences. I belived this was usual for 3D, now that you say it, it makes so much sense, f*cking bastards!!!
I had the same experience watching Tron…too dark.
True. I did notice that when I was watching Thor. I saw it in 2D and noticed that some parts shown in Asgard looked like they were meant to be seen in 3D cause the picture looked blurry. Plus I don’t care for when there’s an explosion they crank up the volume loud then minimize it when the don’t show any action.
I saw Avatar in both 3D and 2D, and the 2D version was much darker for me.
What good is a business trying to make money if that business gets a product and takes away part of that product? When you find out some key part of the product is missing, don’t you take it back for a refund or exchange for a product that is complete?
Their just a business trying to make money right? Isn’t that the going attitude around this blog?
Its not a “going attitude” here. Its the reality of business. Everything a theatre/studio or any business does is motivated by one thing – Money.
Its not a bad thing. They are in business. Businesses make money. If they think you will pay for it, they will make it. If they think you wont demand your money back for a diminished screen brightness, they will do it.
The question here is that if the simple practice of changing the lens on a projector would improve the quality, why would these money makers not bother to do it?
Well the reason is that no one complained about it – and by “no one” I mean “enough people to hurt them financially”. If a theatre full of people suddenly left a viewing in droves demanding their money back because they screen was too dim, they would certainly take notice.
The highest paid (non-management)position in a theatre is often the projectionist. Changing a lens takes time. If reducing the amount of time he is paid saves them money they will do it.
People don’t complain. It gets overlooked. Its always about the money.
Right, ethics have no place in a business. As long as not enough people complain, or at least they don’t get caught Then all is OK and forgiven. Why should they care if your experience that they are providing is less than perfect? As long as they get your money.
Sure people dont complaion. If you havent seen the movie before you might just assume that the film makers suck.
3D ruining film again.