Dragon Tattoo - crap film print

[Mark Toia]

Just got back from watching the movie the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"...

My comments are, Fantastic cinematography, fantastic directional piece.. all round, great film.. Always been a fan of david Finchers work.
But what completely pissed me off was watching the film from some scratched up print, jittering, soft grainy film print crap...

I've just been editing all day in my suite and Im lucky enough to have a very good 2k projector spreading an amazingly crisp, rich image across 15feet of wall...
And since shooting RED, I just see perfect pictures... Even my 1/2 res offline edits look better than what I just saw at the theatre.

So when I go to see a movie that looks as soft as a projected DVD... I get might annoyed. I so want my $15 dollars back.
Such a pitty that a production company or studio put so much money into making a 4k film, for it to be presented so badly.

I cannot wait for theatres to go 4k... It couldn't happen sooner for me.

[Jan Balster]

I couldn't agree more.

I just watched Soderbergh's Haywire in a small local theater, film print, and couldn't get over how terrible it looked. Soft, jittery, and overall a painful to watch. Watching the trailer on my iPhone was more exciting than my theater experience.

It's time all theaters switched over to digital projection.

[Björn Benckert]

Just got back from watching the movie the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"...

My comments are, Fantastic cinematography, fantastic directional piece.. all round, great film.. Always been a fan of david Finchers work.
But what completely pissed me off was watching the film from some scratched up print, jittering, soft grainy film print crap...

I've just been editing all day in my suite and Im lucky enough to have a very good 2k projector spreading an amazingly crisp, rich image across 15feet of wall...
And since shooting RED, I just see perfect pictures... Even my 1/2 res offline edits look better than what I just saw at the theatre.

So when I go to see a movie that looks as soft as a projected DVD... I get might annoyed. I so want my $15 dollars back.
Such a pitty that a production company or studio put so much money into making a 4k film, for it to be presented so badly.

I cannot wait for theatres to go 4k... It couldn't happen sooner for me.

Agreed, it looked good but texture and color vice it was almost as soft as that torrent file i did not download... have to look our for that digital cinema sign outside the theater next time..

[Tom Lowe]

Bottom line: film prints SUCK.

[Jack Shanahan]

Bottom line: film prints SUCK.

I imagine they cost a $h!%load too no? Whats the hold up with the theater people? Havnt enough of them shut down already? Time to step it up. I can see why George Lucas pioneered THX certification now.

[John Bannister]

..sad but true. I no longer go and see Films at the theater for this very reason. I have been very disappointed on several occasions by the quality of the print, you get all amped up and excited about the film just to have it fall apart on the big screen either through ratshit projection or damaged film. Now I wait for the BR disk and watch it at home...

[Andrew Walker]

Bottom line: film prints SUCK.

Well its a little more complicated than that. Release prints are horrible. They are on the same quality level as watching the movie on DVD. But if it was an answer print or a wet gate EK print. That would put most digital projection to shame. The problem is they just can't make that many answer prints as it would destroy the original film negative. Not to mention it would take a very long time because all general release prints are printed at high speed. So I'm so glad that theaters are mostly digital now, or at least most of the ones in my area. Because now people get a perfect show the first time and the last time the movie shows.

[Tom Lowe]

Whatever the most pristine copy is, scan it to digital, and then it will never be degraded again... it will just be 1s and 0s.

[Petr Dvorak]

In Prague our only 4K theatre told me that they dont know if they will get GwDT in 4K quality, so I wrote email directly to distributor and didn't got any response. :(

[Sergio Perez]

By reading these posts and also by my own underwhelming experience, I think Red, Sony and all advocating 4K should really try to push bigger awareness not only on the distributors but also on potential audiences and consumers. I didn't have a chance to se Tattoo in 4K and what I saw as an audience member was a good looking film like any other, nothing more nothing less. And that's a real shame, with the technology here and ready!

[Marc Wielage]

Bottom line: film prints SUCK.
Not always. A lot depends on how they're made, what they're sourced from, and how they're projected. So much can be caused by bad projection, especially with questionable lenses, keystoned theater layouts, on projectors that aren't well-maintained.

I would agree that, in general, I'd rather see digitally-captured material on a digital projector. But I've also seen some very good prints made from D.I.'s, and they were fine.

On the other hand: I just saw War Horse at a screening a few days ago, and the print was really soft. And I don't doubt the original looked a lot better. Contrast has a lot to do with apparent sharpness, too.

Bear in mind, more people in the world will see a movie on a print than they'll ever see it digitally projected -- at least for the next few years. But the tipping point is coming.

[Andy Jarosz]

Also remember film prints degrade a little every time they're used. So this far out of the release, that same print's already been run through the projector a bunch and has degraded quite a bit which could easily contribute to what you saw.

That's why smaller independent theaters often have such lower quality projections, it's because they're getting the used prints from the big box guys at a premium and continuing to use them, albeit charging you a lower price.

[Tom Lowe]

Digital will always win vs chemical print. Because with digital you scan the optimal source ONE TIME, and it will never, ever degrade... ever. What you scan at the source will be the same 1s and 0s coming out of the 2K or 4K projector.

[Sean R.]

I first watched it on our 4K projector at RSH then took my wife to see it in a small neighborhood theater displaying a worn out film print. There was a point where she asked me what are all those white dots dancing on the screen. Waiting for my geeky explanation :)
Much different viewing experience. I love the motion and life that film has (sometimes/context) but when the print gets F'ed up, it just starts getting distracting.
Looking forward to seeing more movies delivered in 4K. There is absolutely nothing like it, when it's done right.

[Mark Toia]

I just got back from HUGO... my goodness, what a boring film, My kids turned to me half way through it and said, Dad.. why is this in 3d ? hahhahaha... from the mouths of babes.

What is really disconcerting is that when I play a blueray in our home cinema, (20 foot screen) its brighter, sharper, more brilliant than any theatre I've ever been too. And the sound is even better.

I really think Cinemas over all need to step up.

I'm very much temped to not go to another movie theatre again, I'll just wait another 2 to 3 months, buy the BLUR RAY and watch it home... Cheaper and better experience over all... and I can own it and watch it again and again...

4k releases are the only way to project.
RED, bring out that LASAR projector and save the day!

[Andrae Palmer]

I couldn't agree more.

I just watched Soderbergh's Haywire in a small local theater, film print, and couldn't get over how terrible it looked. Soft, jittery, and overall a painful to watch. Watching the trailer on my iPhone was more exciting than my theater experience.

It's time all theaters switched over to digital projection.

Yeah I noticed the same soft print yesterday for Haywire... but then again thought the movie was too over exposed too especially in the opening scene. What a terrible experience.

[David W. Jones]

I watched the original 3 girl movies back to back at home yesterday. With all your comments I think I'll wait and watch the remake at home as well.

[Timur Civan]

The single best looking moving image i've ever seen was the Inter-positive dailies from a feature i worked on like 8 years ago. One light timed to neutral, from Kodak 5219, in DuArt Labs in NYC. Shot on Arri Standard speeds. My brain exploded. To this day im waiting to see something that looks that good.

But thats basically the cleanest that footage was EVER going to look, EVER.

Last film i saw in theaters.... god, i have no idea....

All i remeber is i felt like i paid $14.50 for nothing.

[Tim Whitcomb]

Bottom line: film prints SUCK.

Yet, what do I do when an old school producer is bringing me $2M in post and INSISTING they shoot 35mm... I just shake my head and take their $... because did all I could to convince them
but in the end... right now... FILM s where these films currently end up being projected and its hard to argue with that. Its their money.

[SeanBrown]

Maybe you can show them why.. Red is the way to go. Might be a good wake up they just might not know.

[Marc Wielage]

Digital will always win vs chemical print. Because with digital you scan the optimal source ONE TIME, and it will never, ever degrade... ever. What you scan at the source will be the same 1s and 0s coming out of the 2K or 4K projector.
Let me give you a counter argument: leave your digital files and a film print in a box for 50 years. Which will you be able to recover in 2062?

Granted, if the storage medium plays back, and if the drives exist, you'll have no problem. But that's two big if's. I've already had two experiences (on major films, one of which made about $500 million) where half the LTO tapes got corrupted in a 7-year period. Now, multiply that amount of time by 7. Lots of things can go wrong in 50 years.

As to the Dragon print, I'm positive Light Iron and David Fincher made beautiful prints of the show, and I bet under optimum conditions, the prints will look fine. There are advantages and disadvantages to digital, but the pendulum is swinging more towards digital. The time element is the wild card, and I'm nervous about how digitally-acquired projects will survive after a decade or two. Heck, there are NBC shows shot on videotape in the 1980s that you can't play back now (or only with great difficulty), and those were analog. Same problem. LTO is still magnetic tape, and tape can -- and will -- go bad over time.

[Tom Lowe]

Let me give you a counter argument: leave your digital files and a film print in a box for 50 years. Which will you be able to recover in 2062?

That's not a counter argument; it's a different topic.

[Denizhan Nacar]

Just got back from watching the movie the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"...

My comments are, Fantastic cinematography, fantastic directional piece.. all round, great film.. Always been a fan of david Finchers work.
But what completely pissed me off was watching the film from some scratched up print, jittering, soft grainy film print crap...

I've just been editing all day in my suite and Im lucky enough to have a very good 2k projector spreading an amazingly crisp, rich image across 15feet of wall...
And since shooting RED, I just see perfect pictures... Even my 1/2 res offline edits look better than what I just saw at the theatre.

So when I go to see a movie that looks as soft as a projected DVD... I get might annoyed. I so want my $15 dollars back.
Such a pitty that a production company or studio put so much money into making a 4k film, for it to be presented so badly.

I cannot wait for theatres to go 4k... It couldn't happen sooner for me.

The original European version of the movie is more authentic and a great work of art...Very impressive trilogy

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132620/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216487/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343097/

[Tim Whitcomb]

Maybe you can show them why.. Red is the way to go. Might be a good wake up they just might not know.

LOl. you don't think I tried? some people don't even want to listen Sean... and at this budget you just smile and say "OK"

[Jason Comparetto]

What a shame to throw away the quality in the very last step of delivery. Sad

[Chris Pickle]

Saw Mission Impossible in Florida over the holidays. Looked absolutely horrible. Ugly, dirty, scratched print.

One of the problems though, is that the theatres spend the money on Digital projectors so that the studios can save money. Yes, the image would be better looking which should benefit the theatre, but they need to see a savings as well, if they are to amortise the new projectors.

[Brett Reynolds]

Saw Dragon on a 4K projector...Awesome. It was so "steady" and sharp it felt more 3D than 2D.

[Stephen Gentle]

On the other hand: I just saw War Horse at a screening a few days ago, and the print was really soft. And I don't doubt the original looked a lot better. Contrast has a lot to do with apparent sharpness, too.

I saw such a crap showing of War Horse. It was in a really small cinema, and the projection was mostly out of focus (I think there was something wrong with the lens as parts of the frame were in and parts out) showing a scratched up print...

[Marc Wielage]

That's not a counter argument; it's a different topic.
Tom, you said: Because with digital you scan the optimal source ONE TIME, and it will never, ever degrade... ever.

I would call it "degraded" if the data evaporates and you can't get it back.

Read the cover story in Daily Variety from last week: "Acad Sounds Alarm About Fragility of Digital Production (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118048861)." This is a very, very sobering story. The article stresses over and over again that film lasts a long time, and also cites the same thing I've been saying: that there are numerous examples of films less than ten years old where the digital files have been lost, corrupted, or incomplete.