Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

Why Home Theater isn't as good as a real theater


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 260 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 3:34:25 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 7:33:10 AM PDT
bfore13 says:
"Watching movies used to be a group event shared with friends/family/a date and strangers."

I think this was more the case when we had 19-27" tube TVs with VHS tapes and used the TVs for sound. As larger widescreeen TVs and DVDs (with 5.1 audio) came along the home viewing experience evolved tremendously such that you could get somewhat of a movie theater feel at home. The even larger TVs and PJs used now along with Blu-ray enhance that even more to the point where it's surpassed the theater for some people. I had a 32" 4:3 TV as late as '99-'00 and watching widescreen movies (especially 2.35:1) was brutal with the huge black bars. We've come a long way since then.

"Now it is becoming an internal and personal and solo thing."

The first 2 don't lead to the third. For me, movies have always been personal ... how you interpret things in the movie, anticipate things that might come, etc. I find comedies especially personal because my enjoyment can depend heavily on my mood at the time. However, 90% of the time I watch movies with my wife so the solo aspect doesn't apply. It's not like you sit and discuss the movie while you're watching it so I'm not buying the shared event argument. If it's a good movie that immerses me in it, I'm not even paying attention to who else is in the movie theater.

Posted on May 31, 2012 9:32:03 AM PDT
A M says:
"Opinion. By the stating of which you reject all other views."
"And yours is the only view that matters."

I realize you are disagreeing with A M as I am, but what you're saying is hypocritical at best. We are all stating opinions. Stating opinions, by itself, does not reject other opinions. And if our own opinions are the only ones that matter, then we wouldn't be sharing them on a public forum. You don't realize when you are ranting that you might as well be describing yourself.

@Jonathan

Thank you. I saw that guys post and I actually got REALLY angry. But you said very concisely what I would have said with much more anger. And even though I agree with other posters who say many people (especially on the right) are obsessed with their "rights." I never tried to imply that any of this (to watch a movie in a theater or at home) is a right. But I do have the right to free speech which is being expressed here.

In terms of your other post:

"You are not splitting up into groups and going into discussions with everyone at a commercial theater after the movie." I have done this. With complete strangers at movie theaters.

And you kinda contradict what I said with why people go to IMAX and it being more immersive. I believe a normal 35mm theater is more immersive. And you say that a movie screen shows exactly the same image. And the only thing a movie theater has is a crowd. I disagree. Why do people love Monet's Water Lilies? Part of the scope and grandeur is how large the canvases are. And you have to step back to see the image in the painting. I could look at an 8x10 reduction of it from a foot away and see the same thing. But it is not the same experience. That is what I mean by "presence." By your measures watching James Bond on my phone at a distance of a foot is the same with being in the Cinerama Dome.

Also, when I talk about a crowd- I love how you hyperbolize and say about going to a Sports Bar or a Rave which are totally different experiences and going to an extreme. Also when you talk about needing someone else's permission to laugh - you are thinking about it in a cerebral sense. Certain things are infectious. Like laughing and being scared. You've never been with your friends and in a scenario where you are not supposed to laugh and one of your friends starts to crack up and that makes it harder for you to not crack up? You've never heard of paranoia spreading like a virus? These are not examples from going to the movies. I am giving examples from life.

Something I have also always maintained that with whom you go to see a movie is important. I saw "sex, lies, and videotape" with my friend George who is very quiet and catholic and conservative (and at the time a virgin). It was a good movie. But he was the wrong person to see it with. And that hampered my ability to enjoy the experience. But George also has a great sense of humor. That same summer also saw UHF and seeing it with him (over a more liberal and cerebral friend) amplified my fun that night. My reaction to the screen was the same. But immediate milieu altered my experience.

Posted on May 31, 2012 11:20:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 11:20:55 AM PDT
Zero of One says:
For less than $3000, I've converted a spare bedroom into a home theater. 120" screen, 7.1 surround, cheap Walmart curtains to blackout the walls, homemade acoustical treatment (I'll admit, not as good sounding as a real theater, but MILES ahead of a home surround system), tiered seating for 10+ people (with comfy blankets and pillows) and a popcorn machine.

I also have a HTPC that I rip all my Blu-rays and DVD's to, over 2000 original movie trailers and teasers, theater intros from various decades (50's, 60's, 70's, etc.), over 1000 short cartoons, various newsreals, bumpers, etc.

For any movie I watch, I can re-create the theater experience of the year that the movie was first released, with the appropriate trailers, intro's etc. (the ultimate in Nostalgia!). I can have my good friends and family over to watch the shows with me (and they're more than happy to come :) ) and every time a new release comes out that everyone wants to see (big one's like Dark Knight) I have a party and invite people I work with.

The best time I've had in "El Diablo Perro Cinema" is when I had 5 of my best friends over to watch a marathon of all 6 Star Wars movies (played them all the way through with no Pause button in sight -- if you had to pee, tough!!) We watched while commenting, praising, joking, picking on Lucas, sitting in silenced awe at times, all while in the comfort of my own home with Irish Coffees, homemade chocolate chip cookies (from a Darth Vader cookie jar no less -- "Come to the Dark Side Luke, We have -- cookies!!"), and my dog Buddie (the original El Diablo Perro).

So, my point is (besides being a braggart), I agree with both sides of the argument, because I have the best of both worlds!!

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 11:42:03 AM PDT
Roy Zander says:
$3000 was my center channel speaker (you can't spend too much on speakers) But you've got a great start. I started by opening up a tabletop tube radio and sending its signal to naked speakers in each corner of my bedroom. Now 40 years later, squeezing the pennies and upgrading 1 piece at a time, (and with expert consultations with pros all along the way), I have sound much better than any theater. You've got me beat with the organization and nostalgia aspect by far, though. Fun stuf, huh?

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 2:21:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 2:23:30 PM PDT
A M - The cell phone is a hyperbole. Do you get room-shaking bass watching a movie on your cell phone? Do you watch a movie with the cell phone held about 2 ft from your eyes, and not get tired doing so, as it would require to match the viewing angle of an IMAX theater? I'm guessing not. I still don't think you get why viewing angle is tantamount to immersion. An IMAX theater takes up more of your visual space (a real IMAX theater, mind you, and there are only 2 in LA, one of them is in that mall near LAX). I can sit 4ft-5ft away from a 50" Pioneer Elite Kuro in a small, light-controlled, room with a good sound system and it will feel exactly as it does in the local theater. I am not obsessed with the remote. And the ambient conditions drown out any distractions that the room otherwise would have presented -- no, in fact it's better than the commercial theater, which by law must keep lights on by the entrances, and those fancy red walls that makes the color accuracy of the projection worse.

And the ambiance is exactly what makes watching a movie and watching Water Lilies different. If the room where you look at paintings is darkened, then you really wouldn't see much of a difference, provided the smaller reproduction maintained all the detail, would you? A reduction of the original inevitably does lose detail though, but film is exactly the opposite -- 2000 lines are blown up dozens of feet across the screen; a home theater projector easily sharper and brighter than the average commercial theater setup. If you're feeling something besides what your 5 senses could purvey, then that could be only subjective, imagined, perhaps prestige, for being a museum, or some mentally imposed satisfaction of looking at some original work in history. None of that is felt watching a movie where the film reel is reproduced, unless to the easily impressionable.

I have a feeling that maybe there are two kinds of people that like to watch movies. One likes to enjoy the movie for what it is. It is an artwork, an idea, a message from the director to the audience, and it should be appreciated with minimal distraction. The other likes to feel as if they're a part of a movement, a social gathering, and the actual movie could as well be a fill-in for any other kind of social activity, pardon me if I presume... The main course for me when I watch a movie is the movie itself. That doesn't mean I can't tolerate other people, I don't mind watching a movie with friends at all. Yes, as you say, that can improve the experience. Watching it with the wrong people can make it worse. Watching it with 100 random strangers is like playing dice. If I needed to talk to someone after the movie, then I could still do that.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 2:42:05 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 31, 2012 2:43:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 7:09:40 PM PDT
A M says:
Did you watch them in episode order (I - VI) or in release order (IV - VI, I - III). Lucas says they should be watched from I - VI. But if you do, then there are no surprises - That Darth is Luke's Dad or that Luke and Leia are twins or when the Emperor appears in Jedi.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 7:29:24 PM PDT
A M says:
"no, in fact it's better than the commercial theater, which by law must keep lights on by the entrances"

I work in film and some editors keep the editing room near pitch black which annoys me. But none keep it COMPLETELY PITCH black where the only light is from the screen. And I don't think any director would want to have their film screened in a room without some extra ambient light. But you describe that as a distraction.

"2000 lines are blown up dozens of feet across the screen; a home theater projector easily sharper and brighter than the average commercial theater setup."

I have never watched film on a movie screen and thought it was softer or darker than a TV screen. Certain things when you explain the science of it may be true, but does not hold up in the actuality of it. Theoretically AAC is better than MP3. But when comparing them, most people can not hear a difference. I have even used MP3s in movies and even though it is a "lossy" codec - sound editors have said that when they check the integrity of the waveform that it is fine and replacing it with an AIFF will not really gain anything!

"If you're feeling something besides what your 5 senses could purvey,"

Yes. I can. And you can too. What is love? What are emotions? It is not something you can see, hear, touch, smell, or taste? There are lots of things we feel and sense that can not be quantified. Why does the vast majority of the planet have FAITH in a Supreme Being that none of their five senses can perceive.

"It is an artwork, an idea, a message from the director to the audience"

It is not that. It is a message from the director, the writer, the producer, the studio execs, the actors. Here is a fact for you, the vast majority of film directors do not have final cut and it is the studio execs who have the final say. And the original idea for the film usually begins with the writer or a producer and the director is hired later on. Directors originate very few films. This is part of the oversimplification of your point of view.

"The main course for me when I watch a movie is the movie itself."

It is the main course. But even main courses have side dishes, salads, appetizers, and desserts. And most restaurants agree that presentation (which includes ambience) is part of what makes a meal.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 8:41:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 11:22:04 PM PDT
Zero of One says:
For the Star Wars marathon, we watched it in "flashback" order. Started with A New Hope then Empire. Since that ends with the big "Luke I'm your father." reveal, we then watched Ep. I - III as a sort of "flashback" to how Anakin became Vader, and Luke's father. Then we ended with Return. It gives you a different perspective, the difference in looks between the Original Trilogy and the Prequels aren't as clashing and it puts the prequels (the weakest of the series IMHO) in the middle.

I'm most proud that we stayed awake through 5 1/2 movies (we all fell asleeep during the last half of Return). Great Day!!

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 10:00:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 10:24:47 PM PDT
"And I don't think any director would want to have their film screened in a room without some extra ambient light. But you describe that as a distraction."

If you have a front projection system, you'd know that ambient light decreases contrast. Not only that, in a living room, if it isn't a dedicated home theater, there will be furniture, wall art, and stuff that is a distraction. Editors might not like their room pitch black, because sitting in such a room for hours will strain their eyes, but surely they strive for it anyways because that's how they are going to see the most accurate colors; the room where the audience is going to watch their work isn't going to have the same color temperature as the editing room.

"I have never watched film on a movie screen and thought it was softer or darker than a TV screen."

It very much holds up to the actuality of it. Any LCD or plasma is inherently brighter than most front projection setups, and we can prove this by turning on some lights and watching the front projection fade to grey. But home theater projectors, and this is what I really want to focus on, can also often beat commercial theaters. SMPTE recommends 12-22 foot candles on screen (look up 196M), but commercial theaters consistently measure less than 8ftL and less than 500:1 ANSI contrast. A decent home theater projector can easily throw 1000:1+, partly because it's on such a small screen.

If you look closely at the "black" in commercial theaters, you might notice that it's some medium grey shade, with a reddish tinge, because of the reddish walls, and warm sconce lighting around the entrances. Yes, I've seen this in most theaters around LA, some better than others obviously; I've been to quite a few.

"Theoretically AAC is better than MP3."

That makes you wonder what people see in 24-bit blu-ray lossless PCM soundtracks. But whether there's an audible difference between the AAC and MP3 also depends on the bit-rate of the MP3. Studies have shown that well-encoded MP3's are indistinguishable to most people, but sound engineers that know what to look for could pick out differences in highly dynamic passages at high volumes, so there is a difference, maybe a small one.

"Yes. I can. And you can too. What is love? What are emotions? It is not something you can see, hear, touch, smell, or taste?"

I would ask you why you feel emotion looking at Water Lilies, but not at a reduction? It seems to me you have some subjective bias, or some preconceived notion that the reduction (or home theater) is inferior going in, if what you're getting from the 5 senses is exactly the same.

"Why does the vast majority of the planet have FAITH in a Supreme Being that none of their five senses can perceive."

They don't, but in case you're right, does that mean you want to rely on FAITH to disseminate any scientific arguments for the home theater? Surely, that would mean the end of most Blu-ray Forum topics. Why even bother?

"Directors originate very few films. This is part of the oversimplification of your point of view."

That was not my point so I didn't feel the need to elaborate. This is a red herring.

"And most restaurants agree that presentation (which includes ambience) is part of what makes a meal."

I agree, and the ambiance in a home theater isn't necessarily worse than a commercial one.

In reply to an earlier post on May 31, 2012 11:16:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 31, 2012 11:27:03 PM PDT
A M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 1:24:21 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
"I do have the right to free speech which is being expressed here."

The First Amendment protects speech from infringement by gov't. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities.

Otherwise, good: my comment about the overemphasis on "rights" -- some of which cannot exist in a sane society -- pissed you off because it hit a nerve.

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 3:28:27 AM PDT
J. E. Bothun says:
A point completely neglected in this thread - When you can't see the kind of movies you want to at a theater in the first place, the "theater experience" doesn't mean one single thing. Can I watch a Kiarostami or Hou film at a theater in Colorado Springs? Absolutely not. Millennium Mambo is the kind of film I want to see on a very large screen, not yet another CGI action blur or terrible Russell Brand comedy - yeah, there sure is a whole lot of beauty, emotion, and grandeur there.

As for what I can see at a theater, I feel there's no difference in effect between a theatrical viewing and a home viewing. Seeing Melancholia on Blu-ray was a far more moving experience than anything I've ever seen in a theater. Watching fluff with a lot of people who are simply passing time does not equate to a meaningful social experience.

By the way, the movie theater only exists because it was an efficient and profitable way to show moving images - size was only born out of it and depending on where you are sitting, that size isn't the same for everybody (I rarely sit lower than halfway in a theater, so the image is rarely effectively bigger than what I get at home.) Comparing cinema to a painting is a fallacy - the movie is always a copy of a copy, the image is what it is, and it's not really the provenance (outside of print generation) that matters (as in a painting or sculpture in which a photograph absolutely reduces all of the operating qualities of the original.) And what of digital? If you're arguing purity, you should be arguing film vs. digital in the theater and only film projection in the theater vs. the digital home theater. Cinema is simply motion pictures, no matter where it's coming from, so quality of presentation is the utmost concern. Theatrical digital projection is known to be subpar with many shortcuts taken to save costs on energy and equipment. If my home presentation produces a more pleasing image, allows me to see what I actually want to see, and I don't have to have some superficial meaningless social experience with people I don't know or care about, who might not even care (and would never care) about the film, why should I choose otherwise?

For this cinephile, the theater that caters to my needs is a Mecca, a far off journey you make if you can when you can, but we don't have a church (certainly, the multiplex is not ours) - we are forced to worship at home.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 1:01:52 PM PDT
I prefer "better" (closer to SMPTE and THX recommended) brightness and contrast for the same reason I prefer 1080p. I can sit closer or further from a screen simulating any viewing angle. Somewhere between 36-40 degrees is perfect. The lights are off so that all you're watching is the screen; you are not subconsciously comparing it to other objects around the room, like a 3D model of a statue -- one that lacks natural lighting, and, at a distance, takes up less space of your viewing angle -- within the frames of a monitor in a brightly-lit room, with other objects in the background vying for your attention. Or two objects of a different kind: one is a painting with oil brush strokes slightly jutting out providing a sense of depth; and the other being a shiny photograph printed on FUJIFILM Crystal Archives paper that, although it reflects a lot of light, improving contrast, it is flat, diminutive, it is art of a different mode.

No, a home theater and commercial theater both comprise screens. They are objects of likeness: both are flat; porous, to allow acoustic transmission from speakers behind the screen; made of the same fabric or vinyl materials; and they are both white or shades of grey. Where they differ -- that matters -- is their gain, contrast, and their color dictates the black level. Both are designed to reflect light from a projector. On a digital projector in a commercial theater, I can always see the pixel borders, if I pay attention to them -- never at home. But that is because a digital projector at a commercial theater must project 2K-4K resolution, just a bit over to 4 times blu-ray resolution, over a screen area over 100 times the size. They both have seats of various comfort levels. And when the lights are off, you are looking at the frames being projected on the screen that takes up certain area of your visual space, depending on how far you sit, and the aspect ratio, which is the same. And if you want, you could make the same buttery, salted popcorn and grab a cold glass of Coke.

A properly-designed home theater "feels" subjectively the same as a commercial one. A room accommodating 6 seats only features a 8-10ft (horizontal) screen, but it doesn't lack the grandeur. Go to blu-ray.com or avsforum.com for some excellent examples of what I'm talking about.

But alas, if you want to use some non-quantifiable metric called "emotion" for the crux of your argument, then this is where the discussion ends -- and sorry to make another hyperbole, but you're making the exact same argument as DVD fans who prefer it over blu-ray because it's subjectively better for them; it is softer, noisier, lower specification, but it may also be nostalgic, bringing up feelings of emotion of poor quality cinema or TV programs that they may have gotten used to when they were younger. If that's what you're saying, that commercial theaters may be technically worse, but that you are still emotionally attached to the concept, then I have nothing further to add.

That's sort of like saying someone prefers the public bus over a luxurious limo with plush, leather seating, a fridge for a cold drink, private driver, superior shocks, but -- less people riding with you... and the bus ride conjures up a subjective, emotional, experience. It's perfectly valid to prefer the public bus over a limo, I guess.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 1:43:02 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 1:48:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 8:43:32 AM PDT
A M says:
"A properly-designed home theater "feels" subjectively the same as a commercial one. A room accommodating 6 seats only features a 8-10ft (horizontal) screen, but it doesn't lack the grandeur. Go to blu-ray.com or avsforum.com for some excellent examples of what I'm talking about.

But alas, if you want to use some non-quantifiable metric called "emotion" for the crux of your argument, then this is where the discussion ends"

Yes, but how many people have the space and the money to create a true "home theater" as you say? I have been in the homes of many wealthy people who have their own private screening rooms with extremely large screens and a decent throw and comfy couches and bean bags and the like along with actual seats. (They usually have 35mm as well as video). It may be in their home but it is a THEATER because it has a large screen. But I am not that wealthy (like most people) I just have a 50" HDTV and 5.1 setup. Given the choice I'd rather watch almost any film on a 10-20 foot screen (even if it is a screening room at a post facility or someone's house) over a 50-60" Plasma or LCD.

From your point of view "The Dark Knight" looks better in IMAX because of clarity. From my point of view it looks better because of size. And as I pointed out earlier about clarity - I don't know if you saw Star Wars Ep II upconverted to IMAX at the Howard Hughes Center. But many of the digital backgrounds that looked fine in the Chinese at 2K looked fake in IMAX. Another example of added clarity making something look worse.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 1:50:33 PM PDT
Gin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 1:52:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 1, 2012 1:53:08 PM PDT
Gin says:
"I have been in the homes of many wealthy people who have their own private screening rooms with extremely large screens and decent throw and comfy couches and bean bags and the like along with actual seats. (They usually have 35mm as well as video). It may be in their home but it is a THEATER because it has a large screen."

So your point is now that if someone is rich enough to make a "true" home theater, then it's no longer a home theater, it's a movie theater? And only people with 50-60" LCDs or Plasmas have true home theaters?

You sir are funny.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 2:04:03 PM PDT
A M says:
"The First Amendment protects speech from infringement by gov't. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities."

What you don't realize is that your statement implies that you have the "right" to contain my speech. You don't. You can comment on it (as Jonathan and I do). But the only "person" here who has the right to curtail my speech is an administrator from http://amazon.com.

I actually agree with your opinion on the rights over emphasis on rights. Like how Sarah Palin thinks Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign is trying to take away people's rights to eat cookies. Or that having stricter regulations on miles per gallon is taking away our right to guzzle gas.

But when you say that my stating of my opinion rejects all others - that is where you are just plain wrong. I am fully aware that this is my opinion. And there probably are anti-social people out there who prefer to do everything in their lives without others. And it also implies that if I didn't state it I wouldn't be rejecting all others. Which is also nonsense. I could believe that EVERYTHING is better when shared and that all people believe that and negate any other idea or opinion without ever saying it.

"I would find being the only person at a concert a lonely experience."

And yours is the only view that matters.

Again, this is your inference. In that very same post I said to Jonathan "But you are very different from me" which is my accepting of his view even though I disagree with it.

""If you just want to listen to the music - then buy a CD."

Interesting how your "rights" are contingent upon the limitation of others' choices; implicit in which is ridicule of and dispensing with others' views."

What "right" am I talking about here? The right to listen to music? I was making a point of there is a reason people go to a concert. And it is not just to hear the music. It is to hear the music live. To see the band. To cheer for the band. To hear jams and improv. Many people believe music is only real when it is performed live and that when it is layered in a recording studio that it is artificial. Yes, I was being cavalier and dismissive saying that one should just buy the CD if all they care about is listening to the music. But that doesn't impinge on anyone's rights to go to a concert to just hear the music.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 2:19:30 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 2:25:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2012 8:48:26 AM PDT
A M says:
"When you can't see the kind of movies you want to at a theater"

Yes. You are right. I mean, I first watched "Juggernaut" (which the article was about) on VHS tape. I had no means of watching it in a theater. Home video is great in that it allows a film to live on perpetuity. I watch a lot of movies at home on blu ray, cable, DVD, & via streaming. I don't see every movie out there and I don't see everything in a theater.

And for that guy who lives 30 miles away from the nearest theater - then home video is the only logical choice. I personally could never live in a place like that. But to each their own.

"the movie is always a copy of a copy"

I will argue this point in that almost any film in the last twenty years - I doubt anyone would be able to notice the difference between a release print which is a copy of a copy(Original Camera Neg goes to an interpositive from which a new internegative is made and from that the release print is made) and an EK print struck directly from the original negative. And usually a home video is transferred from an interpositive, not the original camera negative.

"Theatrical digital projection is known to be subpar with many shortcuts taken to save costs on energy and equipment. If my home presentation produces a more pleasing image, allows me to see what I actually want to see, and I don't have to have some superficial meaningless social experience with people I don't know or care about, who might not even care (and would never care) about the film, why should I choose otherwise?"

First of all, as I said, even though there may be a slew of technical reasons why your home set up is technically better, to most people the quality will not be apparent. Just like how the sound editor said to me that the integrity of the waveform of the MP3 was fine and giving him an uncompressed AIFF would not yield better sound.

But you are also changing your point. You say "Why would I choose otherwise" but earlier you were talking about not having a choice. "Melancholia" did have a limited run in theaters in large cities. If I had wanted to, I could have seen it at the Landmark. Someone in a small town in Missouri probably could not. Now that the theatrical run is over, home video is the only choice again. Sometimes you get lucky. The first time I saw "Casablanca" was in a theater on a college campus. And the first time I saw "On the Waterfront" was a special screening at the Academy.

I was never intending to say that Home Video is not an option. But to me it is second best. Kinda like the difference between getting a burrito from a family owned taqueria and going to Taco Bell.

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 2:32:42 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 3:29:49 PM PDT
You don't need a lot of money to buy a projector that costs no more than an HDTV, and a 100"-150" screen, but the cost is irrelevant -- as Gin says, a HOME theater is a home theater. Home theaters vary in quality as do commercial theaters, and you surely don't require a dedicated room with coffered ceilings, valances, and all that jazz, because when you dim the lights, the only thing that matters is the screen.

Actually, from my point of view, IMAX looks better because IMAX theaters give more attention to the brightness of the projector, the IMAX aspect ratio is taller and the incline of the stadium seating ensures a wider viewing angle.

I wish I could underline and bold font *viewing angle*, because while viewing angle is related to size, it is not the same thing. IMAX size is bigger, but you likely do not enjoy it because it is bigger, but that there's a wider viewing angle. Imagine if you had to sit a mile away from a screen twice as big as the biggest one you've seen, would that be immersive? Seating distance has everything to do with how size is perceived.

"Another example of added clarity making something look worse."

I'm not a fan of Star Wars, but I don't see how anyone who's a fan of blu-rays could make this claim. I don't understand why you are attributing IMAX looking worse to improved clarity. Do you also think upscaled DVDs and blu-rays look worse than VHS? (I know you don't believe this, but what you say is quite contradictory.)

Posted on Jun 1, 2012 3:38:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 1, 2012 3:40:51 PM PDT
Sha Gojyo says:
I don't even see what the first amendment has anything to do with the OP anyway, or why it was even brought up. should just drop it and get back to the original subject at hand.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  260
Initial post:  May 23, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions