Have you ever gone to the local cineplex, the one with the state-of-the-art, digital auditoriums — and watched a movie whose images are dim, dark and lacking color? That apparently has happened one too many times to Boston Globe reviewer Ty Burr, who wrote about this issue over the weekend and shed some light on what seems to be a growing problem. What he discovered was this: Many exhibition chains are using 4K projectors from Sony to run their digital prints. These projectors require a special lens when showing 3D movies that frequently isn’t removed by projectionists when a 2D print is shown, essentially resulting in a filter that one of Burr’s sources says can take away as much as 85% of the light that reaches the screen. The problem is bad enough in Boston to have riled director Peter Farrelly, who earlier this year attended a promotional screening of his film Hall Pass. “I walked into the room and I could barely see, and my stomach dropped,’’ the filmmaker told the Globe. “The first screening looked spectacular and the second was so dark, it was daytime versus nighttime. If they’re doing this for a big screening, I can’t imagine what they do for regular customers. That’s no way to see a movie.”
The story is staring to gain traction in film circles, but what people should be talking about is the dismissive attitudes of the companies involved that Burr discovered when writing his story:
Though the issue is widespread, affecting screenings at AMC, National Amusements, and Regal cinemas, executives at all these major movie theater chains, and at the corporate offices of the projector’s manufacturer, have refused to directly acknowledge or comment on how and why it’s happening. Asked where his company stands on the matter, Dan Huerta, vice president of sight and sound for AMC, the second-biggest chain in the US, said only that “We don’t really have any official or unofficial policy to not change the lens.’’
…
After multiple requests, Sony declined through a spokesman to respond to questions about its digital projection equipment. Executives at the major theatrical chains are equally unwilling to discuss the matter. When contacted for this article, a spokesman for Regal, the nation’s largest multiplex operator, e-mailed the following statement: “Patron response has been overwhelmingly positive toward digital cinema and all of the associated entertainment options provided by this technology.”
You’d think the exhibition industry would be especially interested in keeping its patrons happy as there hasn’t been much to cheer about so far this year, as the box office data has shown for months. Our guess is that will change as this report gets around.


I tweeted that earlier article to AMCHelps yesterday and got the following response: “I want you to know that I very much appreciate this feedback and the link. I will forward on to the necessary people.”
Hopefully with the resulting press from Roger Ebert and Deadline picking up this story, this matter will soon be resolved.
Yet another reason in a laundry-list of problems that keep me away from movie theaters. Really guys, you’re not giving me and many people I already know that are exasperated with the movie-going experience much incentive to not wait just three more months to watch a film in the comfort of our own homes.
Oh wow. And here I thought something is wrong with my eyes…
An European blogger put it that way:
“This is a milestone. Now only movie pirates can enjoy movies without being patronized or technical obstacles and disadvantages”
It is sad but true. Not only cry babies, popcorn munchers, chatters, and phone addicts are ruining it, the operators do it themselves, too.
Forget 2D movies darkened by 3D filters. What about 3D movies darkened by 3D filters??!? One of the biggest problems with 3D movies today is that the glasses mute all the colors and dim the entire picture, so it looks like crap. Isn’t there some way they could up the projection brightness above the desired level, so that when you put on the glasses, it appears at the proper brightness??
So very true. That’s why I don’t watch films in 3D anymore.
Its not price… it’s the 3D glasses taking all the color and light off the screen. I saw Thor at the Arclight Imax, it’s looked awful, the whole thing was DARK and GREY. If a Director actually saw that’s how the film ended up looking… they’d all go MAD!
You meant to say the ArcLight Cinerama Dome (not IMAX), right?
Good catch. Very important work you’re doing there.
I agree. THOR looked like garbage at the Arclight Hollywood, where it was on three screens — Two huge ones in 3D, and one little dinky one in 2D.
I took a gamble and saw it in 3D — what a waste of money. I’d have been better off seeing it on the little tiny screen, where at least I could tell what was happening.
I took the glasses off for any closeups, as there were no distracting depth effects, and I was constantly amazed at how much better the picture looked without them. The whole alien world had a rich golden hue without the glasses. With them, look that vanished and everything was a murky gray.
My curiosity over 3D was quickly satisfied and it’d no longer a draw for me, especially when it’s that awful ‘retrofitted’ 3D.
When I couldn’t find THOR in 2D in the center of London, I made the conscious choice to wait for the Blu Ray and see a good image at half the cost of the West End tickets.
But when the Blu Ray comes out I may find that my enthusiasm’s waned enough to go for the cheaper (and, frankly, not significantly lower-quality) DVD.
My basic point is that the industry is driving its willing customers downmarket… at the end of the day they’ll get a fifth, or less, of what I was initially willing to pay.
Yep. We saw PRIEST in 3D at the Arclight Hwd (black box) and I will not see another film in 3D. Content of that film aside (another story), it looked like muddy crap. We couldn’t see f***all. As a bonus the bridge of my nose was bright red and painful afterword from the weight of the 3D shades over my own glasses.
Ok, maybe a Cameron film in IMAX 3D or something. I might put the glasses back on for that, but nothing shrugged out in 3D.
Saw THOR non-3D and enjoyed it that way.
this is going to gain a lot of traction thanks to high ticket prices. If these theater chains think they can just ignore this, they might start to see some real damage to the business.
I have given up on the theatrical experience and am very happy watching material at home. May not be a full “professional level” experience, but the outcome is the same. I used to be a projectionist, and after changing careers, I agreed that going back to the exhibition world was out of the question, no matter what the chain. It’s just not my world anymore.
And when the guilds send screeners to my house, as they have in the past, my wife just looks at their source/quality and goes…whatever, let’s wait for BluRay. She’s a real tech-head and knows everything, all the flaws involved in video mastering.
3D movies are largely dull, out of focus, hard to watch events with two or three vaguely interesting 3D effects. This is Cinerama all over again: a cynical attempt to get an audience into a theatre when all it takes is A GOOD STORY.
And yet these same exhibitors complain about studios shrinking theatrical windows for the very films that are being projected incorrectly!
This must explain what happened to me when I saw “The Adjustment Bureau” and “Battle Los Angeles”, both at decent theaters here in Los Angeles where you would hope they would know better. Both were so dim and murky I thought it seemed like the bulb was old and about to burn out. I commented to my companion how much better movies looked on my flat screen and blu ray player at home. As for 3D, I officially throw in the towel, saw “Thor” last week and actually liked the film quite a bit, what I HATED was the absolutely annoying 3D. Dim, dark, claustrophobic and distracting. I paid $3.00 more to have a drastically worse viewing experience, 2D from now on for me! Exhibitors had better start addressing these issues as the theatrical experience becomes more and more frustrating. A zero tolerance policy towards talkers and texters needs to be part of the equation as well.
As I said above, I totally agree. THOR in 3D soured me on the whole concept. I paid extra to have the movie ruined by a picture I could only barely see. I’d rather just watch it at home in three months.
Amen, Brian. I was interested when movies like TRON LEGACY were actually filmed in 3D, but even that was so dim and murky that I couldn’t tell what the hell was going on. I was lucky enough to see THOR in 2D at the Arclight Beach Cities– which looked spectacular. Even at the DGA, 3D movies like ALICE IN WONDERLAND look overly dark and blurry. Never underestimate the stupidity of studio executives when it comes to an unsustainable fad.
To me, that’s just one thing in a long, long list of problems with seeing movies in a theater. I haven’t been to one in about four years and most likely won’t be going anytime soon.
If theaters are going to ask $10+ for tickets, they need to make sure the experience is pleasant for the patron. They need to stop people from bringing their noisy kids to adult films, allowing loud talking and commotions and a number of other problems. I keep hearing they don’t want to alienate their core audience by trying to make them be civil, but do they realize the number of other movie goers who just don’t go anymore because they DON’T control their patrons?
I’m with you. I try to avoid watching big high concept movies opening weekend because you have to deal with the idiot tweens and their texting, morons bringing their babies, etc. It’s getting to where I don’t want to go to theaters anymore due to the endless commercials, projection problems and other issues that should be addressed if they want to keep customers. Arclight is the exception, but don’t live close enough to go often.
Oh so that’s why Hall Pass tanked. I knew it wasn’t the material.
Yes, a big complaint of mine has been the murky lighting. I thought it was a new wave of director’s choice. If they can only get the actors to stop mumbling so much. Or, is that a sound problem, too?
So in other words people are dropping $16 for 3D and not getting what they paid for?
This issue is not the Sony 4k projectors. Its the screen.
RealD 3D requires exhibitor to replace existing white screens with silver screens which reflects the light poorly and can create hot spots on a 2D presentation.
Yes, you are correct some silver screens can interfere with light loss but a curved screen can increase the viewing angle reducing ‘hot spots’ but the polarised filter’s and duel lens’ on Sony 4K projectors result in loss of light and 2D movies mastered in 4K resolution are subsequently be shown in 2K resolution when projected through a duel lens.
I saw Pirates of the Caribbean this weekend at the Grove. Only 2-3 “3D” moments and the picture was so dark I could barely see anything. Took off the glasses and everything was much more vibrant.
I give up on 3D.
Outside of LA and New York, theaters are often the worst places to see movies. That’s the dirty secret of distribution. When I was a reporter the head of General Cinema once told me, “If you have a film they want to see you can show it in a toilet and they’ll still come.”
Once upon a time Lucasfilm had a division called Theater Alignment Program that was diligent-to-obsessive about making sure theaters ran their clients’ films properly. Yet I never heard of one distributor that yanked a movie from an exhibitor who was doing it wrong. Write about theater conditions and the advertising department has a hemorrhage. Let’s see if Burr gets called on the carpet at the Boston Globe where movies constitute one of the top five lineage accounts.
Despite the stories, I have found that seeing a movie in LA is pretty decent versus elsewhere. Used to joke that a theater with a large contingent of movie-makers as movie-goers would commit murder upon the projectionist if films aren’t shown in their best “light.”
Come to find out that theaters in Seattle have a practice of dimming down the pricey projection lamps as a cost-saving measure due to the finite hours they burn. The general public never clues in that they’re getting ripped off. Most theaters are really fast food joints so showing a movie seems secondary anyway.
Theater chains, like airlines, operate under the opinion that “We could really do something with this company if it weren’t for the customers!”
Case in point.
As soon as you advise me as to when 3-D screenings will lighten up enough to see without mortal irritation, I will yank the railroad spikes out of my eyes and enjoy the film. Don’t forget, AMC IS in Kansas, Dorothy.
It even says in the article that moviegoers don’t even notice it. I am a projectionist and I leave the polarizer on for every movie because it’s a pain in the ass to move them and do the adjustment before EVERY show. It’s funny that every is making a hubbub about something that has SO little to do with the movies.
Just another excuse why people don’t want to see the shitty movies that come out every weekend.
And I’d take a slightly darker, crisp digital image that a 35mm that’s probably dirty and scratched to hell, plus a 35 print is really easy to ruin while building as opposed to a harddrive which is pretty much idiot-proof.
Were you drinking tonight?
This is a function of the dominant Real-D 3D projection system used commonly with Christie and Sony projectors.
The filter is a polarizing “Z-Screen” placed in front of the projector lens as part of the effect. It can’t possibly filter out 85% of the light, maybe 15%. You will also notice in 3D houses, the screen is actually silver to reflect more light. (As opposed to a usual white screen.)
These silver screens stain VERY easily, and I have yet to be in a 3D house without at least one soda stain or spitball spot. They’re nearly impossible to clean.
Problems come in two ways: one, when the screen is left in front of a film that doesn’t need it (ie, 2D) and filters out light. But also two, when the lamp life in the projector is allowed to go beyond the manufacturer’s recommended life. Lamps are quite expensive ($700-$1200) and theater chains try to stretch every hour of life out of them.
As the bulbs age, they lose some of their power and brightness. That, combined with a filter in front of the lens can make for a very bad presentation.
I hope the exhibitors and studios read this thread of comments. I won’t go to a 3D screening anymore, I’ll choose the 2D version instead – and I’m not alone. It’s bad enough when the exhibitor won’t use the correct bulb or filter for 2D, but the problem is worse when a movie is converted to 3D or even shot for 3D. Ugh! So dark and murky, not at all what the filmmakers wanted. And if you think it’s bad in LA, try seeing a movie in my mother-in-law’s small midwestern town. I should bring a flashlight.
Doesn’t tv do the same thing? Take for example the program called The Tudors … it was so dark it was just … well, stupid !
What are producers or directors thinking?
No, they don’t. The issue here is movies being shown improperly, much darker than they were supposed to be. What you’re talking about is a creative choice the people behind the Tudors made. Turn the brightness up on your tv if it’s too dark for you.
Today I spent several thousand dollars on a home cinema system. This is money I will NOT be spending in theaters. In fact, I’ve made this investment precisely so that I can avoid going to theaters.
Although I work in film production, I don’t envisage returning to cinemas any time soon. Quite simply, I’ve been disappointed too many times. Prices are too high and the image quality too variable – even at theaters I once trusted. (And don’t get me started on the white elephant that is 3D.)
I used to see AT LEAST a film a week in cinemas, but I haven’t been to a cinema in months. I’ve grow accustomed to waiting for the Blu-ray release.
I’m guessing I am not alone in feeling such frustration. More and more the exhibition industry appears to be on the brink of a very real crisis.
Maybe they are leaving the filters in place so that movie-goers can’t see the butter/Coke/cheese stains on the seats.
Most theaters turn all projector bulbs down up to 30% during weeknight showings of films (a VERY common practice–to save money). Makes this problem far worse.
It’s true. What’s extra sad about this practice is that, as Roger Ebert has pointed out numerous times, it doesn’t save them a cent.
Digital & Digital 3D is the best thing to happen to motion picture exhibitors in a long time: they get to increase their ticket prices while firing their qualified projectionists. The manager can start the film from automation in his/her office, or even from an Ipad at the ticket podium. No qualified employee is present in the booth or the auditorium when the film starts. That’s why the presentation(s) are so often low quality. And Motion Picture Theatres wonder why they lose market share with each passing year. And yes all the Studios are on board with this. Asshats.