LOTR: Was it blurry at your cinema?

[Kit_Taylor]

Anyone else had this problem?

At the showing at my local UGC the picture was surprisingly soft and low on fine detail. I hadn't been to the flicks for a year, but thought thought the silver screen was supposed to be many times better than a humble DVD on my telly? Taking into account the difference in screen size and viewing distance, in relative terms it didn't look that much better than DVD.

And there was loads of print damage and grain after just 6 days of release! Roll on digital...

[Gozer]

When I saw it on day one at the first showing it seemed really dark which was very distracting. Is the film naturally this dark or is my local Odeon dodgy?

[John Nelson]

Yet another dark, grainy film shot in Super 35.

The negative area used to shoot a Super 35 film is tiny. No wonder that movies shot this way never look very good on the big screen :(

-- J.

[rst]

Originally posted by John Nelson
Yet another dark, grainy film shot in Super 35.

The negative area used to shoot a Super 35 film is tiny. No wonder that movies shot this way never look very good on the big screen :(

-- J.


...and a combination of the set up probably...

The bulb could have also been a contributory factor, if its on its way old you get a slight flickering and a less clear picture.:)

[Roberto]

I went to the UCI in Surrey Quey's and i found it to be sharp and full of detail, so no problems there. Only two-thirds into the movie there was some major print damage for about 2 seconds which was very detracting, but fortunately that was it.

Incidentally, when i went to see Harry Potter i did find that to be blurry and have a lack of detail (this was a different cinema in Bristol)

[Steve1977]

I saw the film in a big 2:35:1 THX certified cinema and everything seemed fine. :/
Infact, I'm shocked a film like this was done in super 35, fortunatly though, the framing of the movie was still very good.

[silverpenguin7]

Originally posted by Gozer
When I saw it on day one at the first showing it seemed really dark which was very distracting. Is the film naturally this dark or is my local Odeon dodgy?
I thought the first 10 mins were dark as well (at my Odeon), however the actual print had NO specs or blemishes at all! I have never seen a film at the cinema look so good as far as print quality is concerned!

[urruri]

Not blurry but dark and loud

[Panavision]

I went to UGC Broad Street, Birmingham, huge screen, but found the picture lacking detail. This really deserved an anamorphic panavision camera.
I found it blurry, too.

I guess it was a cheaper option to shoot Super35.

The sound was a bit toooo loud.

[gZa]

Originally posted by Panavision
I guess it was a cheaper option to shoot Super35.The cost doesn't usually come into it - it's just more flexible to shoot stuff Super 35. You don't need tons of light and the cameras (and lenses) are smaller and far lighter to carry/operate etc...

The only problem is the image suffers on 'uge cinema screens - come the time to transfer it to 'low-res' DVD the difference between anamorphic 2.35:1 and Super 35 2.35:1 is unnoticable.

Have a listen to Michael Bay's comments on the <I>Armageddon</i> (shot anamorphic) commentary, for his dislike of a Super 35 film (<I>The Rock</I>) projected on a big screen.

[Rhys]

The lack of sharpness may be less technical.....don't sit too near to the front of the cinema.

Every film I have seen at the cinema sitting at or near the front row has always been soft and grainy.

[cardinal biggles]

Seemed fine to me. However, halfway through the picture started shaking. HIGHLY annoying :(

[Davester]

Well, as long as it looks good on dvd and for the rerelease in 20yrs :D

[mabhh]

I saw it last night at my local warnervillage and was surprised at the blurryness of the first 25minutes. In particular the scene where the 2 armies meet and the camera pans around from afar.

P.S That movie dragged :)

[Mr Flibble]

A superb film and a definite future purchase :)

I too noticed a blurry picture in some scenes though, most noticably the fellowship are walking over a series of hills with a fair few craggy rocks around them, the rocks themselves seemed quite blurry on the edges - sorry for not remembering the exact name of where they were though

Still, didn't spoil my dissapointment - when does the next movie come out ? ;)

[ProgressiveScan]

Originally posted by Panavision
I went to UGC Broad Street, Birmingham, huge screen, but found the picture lacking detail. This really deserved an anamorphic panavision camera.
I found it blurry, too.

I guess it was a cheaper option to shoot Super35.

The sound was a bit toooo loud.

Yeah, I noticed that too, in a couple of places the dialogue was drowned out by the music, sounded like it was badly mixed.

[SOUNDSTYLE]

I noticed it too at Warnervillage in Bristol - the picture being soft and blurry and about half way through the film (for about 2 mins) there was a green streak running down the right side of the screen which was distracting. I hoped that it would disappear because it would have completely ruined the film otherwise - and it did in the end.

Roll on digital projectors.

[sharknose]

I also saw it at the WarnerVillage in Bristol (the Longwell Green one). I was sitting about halfway up in the centre of the room.

I found the picture a bit blurry as well, and there was a bit half-way through (that also lasted two minutes) where the screen was shaking. Not too bad, but quite pathetic considering I was watching it on opening night (well, the last showing of opening night, but.... )

Gavin Thomas

[Panavision]

Originally posted by ProgressiveScan


Yeah, I noticed that too, in a couple of places the dialogue was drowned out by the music, sounded like it was badly mixed.

Came out with big headache, it was way too loud.

[Grumpy]

No complaints from my local cinema except the guy with the spikey hair and sticky out ears sitting in front of me.


Must add WOW what a film I can't wait for the next one !