|
|
Posted by John Harkness on 10/24/05 15:00
On 24 Oct 2005 07:38:08 -0700, "Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@AOL.com>
wrote:
>
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:13:58 GMT from NunYa Bidness
>> <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org>:
>> > On 23 Oct 2005 23:20:53 -0700, "Jim Reid" <jimreid56@aol.com> Gave us:
>> > >There's another possiblilty. There's a theater chain here in Dallas
>> > >that I have caught turning the lamp power down on the projector when
>> > >it's not a full house. The picture looks dark and has what appears to
>> > >be lag in it. I go get the mangager and yell at him and a few minutes
>> > >later it brightens up.
>> >
>> > Do you even know what would be required to reduce the voltage going
>> > to the projector bulb?
>>
>> (big snip)
>>
>> > Hypo-chondria? Perhaps.
>>
>> Or, if it's not just a fabrication, perhaps a lot of dust and dirt on
>> the lens.
>>
>> Like you, I can't imagine any theater turning the lamp down to save
>> money with a less than full house. The cost of running the lamp is
>> such a small part of the total cost of operating the theater that it
>> wouldn't be worth the effort.
>>
>I've been hearing the "turning the lamp down" story for so many years
>it's verging on urban legend, though Roger Ebert and Tim Lucas have
>both complained about it, and neither of them are critics anyone would
>call "unreliable sources". Whatever the reasons, movies shown in
>cinemas almost always look too dark, but I've been more struck by how
>much it must cost to provide air conditioning in a huge, open space
>during an afternoon matinee when you have five or six people (or less)
>who've paid to see the film.
Actually, it's not done to save power.
It's done to prolong the life of the bulb. Those boys is expensive.
Oh, and it's cheaper to air condition an empty theatre than it is to
air condition a full one.
John Harkness
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|