[Richard W. Haines]

Here's the score. I've covered this is other posts but I'll repeat it here.

You aren't getting optimum quality in movie theaters any more. We haven't had consistent quality
since 1968. Prior to that, all theaters showed camera negative prints. That meant that every print
shown in a cinema was struck directly off the original negative that was photographed during
the shoot. That was as good as you could get in an analogue medium like motion pictures.
Now there were differences in quality depending on the format. Films printed in the dye transfer
process ('Glorious Technicolor') had a better color rendition than those printed in Eastmancolor.
However, Eastmancolor print still looked quite good off the camera negative. Prints shot and
printed in large formats like 70mm, VistaVision and Cinerama looked ultra-sharp on the large
screened, some of which were deeply curved. Theaters were custom designed for optimum
projection in the "Roadshow" theaters. Those were the movie palaces adapted for 70mm like
The Rivoli and Ziegfeld in New York City. Cinerama theaters were built from scratch to encompass
the enormous 80 foot wide curved screens. The Dome in LA is a prime example.

In 1968, all of this changed. Cinemas were folding everywhere because the demographics of
the audience had been changed with the demise of the Production Code an implementation of
the Ratings System. By 1970, there were more R rated movies than GP/PG or G. Since the
number of viewers was limited due to the restricted content, they began to twin the movie palaces
or bulid new small screen multiplexes and later megaplexes. These theaters were not built for
optimum presentation but for their cost effectiveness. One projectionist would handle all the machines in some plexes since that aspect of presentation had been automated.

Combined with the small screens and other corner cutting of the seventies, they began to strike
release prints from duplicate negatives rather than the original negatives. That increased grain
and decreased sharpness and resolution. Since they had lost the mainstream audience and the
screens were not the enormous ones used for Cinerama or 70mm, no one seemed to care.
They they elimiated Technicolor dye transfer printing and phased out 70mm (with the exception
of Imax) which further degraded the quality. Add to that high speed printing cranking out the
copies from duplicate negatives at the rate of 2000 feet per minute. They're barely getting an
exposure at that rate. In contrast the camera negatives prints of the pre-1968 era were struck
at 50 feet per minute regardless of format. Dye transfer prints (also derived from the camera
negative) could be made quicker since it was a photo-mechanical rather photo-chemical system,
similar to lithographic printing.

High definition and standard definition DVDs are mastered from fine grain camera negative prints
(Interpositives) or from the negative itself. They never use the crummy high speed copies shown
in the megaplexes for home video formats. The quality isn't up to spec. They would look too
murky. So there you have it.

Of course any 35mm print can be shown on a larger screen than a HD DVD because of pixelation problem in video formats, for a smaller home theater screen they will look better than the release print. They will not look better than a camera negative print which is what they screen for Hollywood insiders, pres showings and film festivals but since consumers don't have access to them, it's a moot point.
If you were able to see a restored 70mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" or Technicolor print of "The Wizard of Oz" you'd see a major quality difference too but for new
features, you aren't getting optimum quality in cinemas any more. Unless you
enjoy the collective experience of watching a movie with an audience, you might
as well screen them in your home theater. They'll look and sound better.