Random question about Cinemas/Pictures

Bit freaky as I was just looking at this myself!

Odeon have 2 digital cinemas - in Surrey Quays and Hatfield. I'm tempted to take a look as the picture quality at all the cinema's I've been to recently is rubbish when compared to Bluray/HD in the home.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
Celluloid lasts for a considerable amount of time, with modern master prints offering an exceptionally slow rate of degradation in comparison to something like a hard drive, for instance, whose mechanical reliability and content parity cannot be guarenteed.
Click to expand...

Not really a valid point, since the data can be copied and secured far more cost effectively than print, which can be far more easily destroyed in fires etc. Digital data can of course be copied and secured in vast quantities for relatively little cost.
 
Last edited:
Robbie G said:
Not really a valid point, since the data can be copies and secured far more cost effectively that print, which can be far more easily destroyed in fires etc. Digital data can of course be copied and secured in vast quantities for relatively little cost.
Click to expand...

idd, easy enough to store it all on tapes after all.
 
Breeny said:
Bit freaky as I was just looking at this myself!

Odeon have 2 digital cinemas - in Surrey Quays and Hatfield. I'm tempted to take a look as the picture quality at all the cinema's I've been to recently is rubbish when compared to Bluray/HD in the home.
Click to expand...

Guildford and Leicester Square both have digital screens too (although not all).
I went to see Star Wars 3 in Leicester Sq on the big screen and was blown-away with the quality. Deep blacks, crisp vibrant colours and superb resolution made it a big step up in quality for me.
I've been an avid cinema goer for over 20 years and have always appreciated a good quality print, but I honestly can't remember the last time I was impressed by a non-digital print at a cinema. Blurry, flickery with washed out colours and scratches, that's how the majority of non-digital cinema is now.
 
how weird, I was thinking this just the other day. I thought about it when I saw Casino Royale and when I saw Quantum of Solace it made me think about it again.
 
Last edited:
My main annoyance with cinema showings is contrast and judder! Particularly in The Dark Knight the black levels were very poor and the loss of detail was very noticeable. Also panning shots in cinemas tend to be a juddery blur fest.
I always wonder why they don't film and display at a higher frame rate? Like 50/60fps to stop panning shots blurring so much. I guess you would use 2x/3x more film but maybe with digital coming in it could happen?
 
SkScotchegg said:
Hi there, I wonder if anyone can please answer this question....I was just thinking with the recent advances in video such as blueray and having such amazing quality films at home, when are they going to upgrade the rubbish projectors they use at the cinema/pictures? They never seem to get any better.

Dont get me wrong, I love going to the cinema and seeing something new on the big screen, and its amazing and all that, but the detail isnt good really if you think about it. So just wondered why they dont have some sort of new technology? Or would it cost too much to make something look as a good as a blueray DVD on a cinema screen of that size?

Thanks in advance,


SkScotchegg:D
Click to expand...

How weird. I was thinking this exact same thing this morning driving to work, and I was going to post on OcUK about it as well :)

Saved me the trouble :D
 
Cathod ray tube (old style tv/monitor) would not be possible due to the size of the glass needed for the screen. This would not be possible to produce and if you eventually found someone to do it it would be in the millions as it is on large telescopes.

Projection is the only way to produce such large images at a reasonable cost. I can not really add too much to the digital cinema that has not already been said.

I have been in my local cinema which recently got updated to digital though and it is an amazing experience. You get a purer image with no dust/scratches you see in large/older cinemas (eg most VUE). You will not see the pixels unless you are within a foot or two of the screen.
 
Celluloid lasts for a considerable amount of time, with modern master prints offering an exceptionally slow rate of degradation in comparison to something like a hard drive, for instance, whose mechanical reliability and content parity cannot be guarenteed.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't store on a single hard drive... you'd put the film on a SAN of some kind, with a decent level of RAID (perhaps 6, perhaps 1+0). :)
 
Cineworld is moving to digital over film. They're both miles higher res than Bluray though.

The spots you nice on film is dust. You should only really see dust on the film of adverts or films that's been out for months.
 
Chris1712 said:
Panning shots in cinemas tend to be a juddery blur fest.
I always wonder why they don't film and display at a higher frame rate? Like 50/60fps to stop panning shots blurring so much. I guess you would use 2x/3x more film but maybe with digital coming in it could happen?
Click to expand...

There's judder in panning shots because film is progressive.

TV is interlaced, which takes away this judder, but interlaced sucks and loses the cinematic 'motion' of a film. 50/60fps as you mentioned would be too expensive with film, but with digital, perfectly feasible, seeing as you can already buy 8000 frame per second cameras, like the ones used for filming Humming Birds; film can go up to that fps, but its only used in slo-mo sequences.

http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2008/07/30/olympics-at-8-000-frames-per-second/

Hope that link doesn't get me suspended or anything.
 
Last edited:
Chimerical said:
There's judder in panning shots because film is progressive.

TV is interlaced, which takes away this judder, but interlaced sucks and loses the cinematic 'motion' of a film. 50/60fps as you mentioned would be too expensive with film, but with digital, perfectly feasible.
Click to expand...

I do understand why it judders, but it still annoys me :p.
This thread has made me want to go to the cinema :(. Theres a new super fancy one in Cabot Circus but no films out to justify it atm :(.
 
Chris1712 said:
I do understand why it judders, but it still annoys me :p.
This thread has made me want to go to the cinema :(. Theres a new super fancy one in Cabot Circus but no films out to justify it atm :(.
Click to expand...

Apparently the seats in cabots circus arent comfortable, well the standard ones at any rate. The directors screens with their lazyboys will obviously be amazing although expensive! Sticking to Longwell Green for now
 
Chris1712 said:
Theres a new super fancy one in Cabot Circus but no films out to justify it atm :(.
Click to expand...

The new Saw? then again that would be annoying due to all the screaming women.

Theres loads of films that I wanted to see, just never had the time too =/
 
Most times I've been to the cinema the picture quality has been dissapointing. Nearly always quite out of focus and the picture moves around a bit too. Once the whole movie had the front right sound channel blasting from the rear right speaker, very distracting! Seems there arn't any proper projectionists there, they just stick the film in and hope for the best! Film may indeed be better but all the times I've been to the cinema DVD quality at home has way outperformed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom