|
|
Posted by NunYa Bidness on 10/24/05 17:29
On 24 Oct 2005 07:38:08 -0700, "Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@AOL.com>
Gave us:
>
>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".
I'm sorry, but a good movie critic is NOT a reliable source as it
relates to knowing what is or is not taking place in a projection
room, or simply even knowing what takes place there at all.
I am also quite certain that they get to watch there films in a nice
theater that wouldn't have petty little monetary issues to "worry
about".
> 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.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|