# Digital cinema - I don't like it



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Went to see Skyfall at HackneyPicture House.  Enjoyed the film.  Didn't like the projection.

I can see pixels (especially jaggies on curved surfaces).  I like to gaze around the scene from time to time - especially big landsapes.  This is not so fun on digi.

Ok, the experience is a lot more consistent than celluloid (which suffers from poor focus sometimes, plus scratches and marks, etc.).  But I just don't like the resolution (4k???) - it sucks.

I will sit further back next time (I was about half way back).


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 18, 2012)

I used to always sit in the front row, especially as my two favourite cinemas had screens that went right down to the floor. Haven't tried that since digital though.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

DId you shout "pixels" loudly whenever you saw them during a moment of CGI trickery? I would have enjoyed that.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2012)

I agree. Don't much like it myself - fast action bits always seem jerky to my eyes


----------



## Corax (Nov 18, 2012)

I watched it at the local Odeon last night.  It was fine, didn't notice any of those things.

I used to work in a cinema, and it always seemed to me that some people went to watch films in order to enjoy the experience, and some people went in order to _appraise_ it.


----------



## Firky (Nov 18, 2012)

It's shit. It reminds me of watching satellite television with snow on the dish.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Corax said:


> I watched it at the local Odeon last night. It was fine, didn't notice any of those things.
> 
> I used to work in a cinema, and it always seemed to me that some people went to watch films in order to enjoy the experience, and some people went in order to _appraise_ it.


It depends if something genuinely affects your experience or not. Watching a well-lit, well printed scene on film can be like looking through a pane of glass at the subject. With digi it is more removed - like a massive telly basically.

Eta: for some reason I do have ridiculously good eyesight (despite being colourblind), which does affect my audiovisual viewing in both positive and negative ways.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Interestingly, I've just read that Skyfall was shot on digital.  Amazing cinematography - I mean one of the best lit action films I've ever seen.


----------



## Reno (Nov 18, 2012)

I've seen most films projected digitally over the last couple of years at the same theatre and I prefer the experience to celluloid. Mind, I don't enjoy sitting close to the screen, it gives me a headache even with conventional prints, so I've never been able to pick up on pixels, but you really shouldn't be able to with a digital cinema projector and seating at the right distance. The only way that I can tell now that something is projected on celluloid is when it has scratches and jumps at the reel changes. A majority of films get shot digitally now and to put them back on celluloid means to lose a generation. By the end of 2013 all film distribution of celluloid prints will cease and by 2015 production of conventional film stock will cease, so you better get sued to it.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> I've seen most films projected digitally over the last couple of years at the same theatre and I prefer the experience to celluloid. Mind, I don't enjoy sitting close to the screen, it gives me a headache even with conventional prints, so I've never been able to pick up on pixels, but you really shouldn't be able to with a digital cinema projector and seating at the right distance. The only way that I can tell now that something is projected on celluloid is when it has scratches and jumps at the reel changes. A majority of films get shot digitally now and to put them back on celluloid means to lose a generation. By the end of 2013 all film distribution of celluloid prints will cease and by 2015 production of conventional film stock will cease, so you better get sued to it.


Yes, I'm going to have to change my viewing habits. I generally sit near the middle of the auditorium, as that suits me for field of view, but I guess I'll have to switch to further back. Also, I might try Imax for the more spectacular films, to see how that improves things.

Eta: sad that we are moving to inferior tech once again.  For me:

CRT > LCD/LED
Celluloid > digi

(subjective I know)


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Yes, I'm going to have to change my viewing habits. I generally sit near the middle of the auditorium, as that suits me for field of view, but I guess I'll have to switch to further back. Also, I might try Imax for the more spectacular films, to see how that improves things.
> 
> Eta: sad that we are moving to inferior tech once again. For me:
> 
> ...


LCD/LED isn't inferior tech though, it's often in HD, much thinner, lighter and uses less power.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 18, 2012)

CRTs never had dead pixels, or light bleed from the edges of the screen.


----------



## Firky (Nov 18, 2012)

Dead pixels are so rare now that I can't remember the last time I read a review for a display that checked for them or mentioned them. 10 years ago... yeah it was a problem. But 10 years ago people were still buying CRTs.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> LCD/LED isn't inferior tech though, it's often in HD, much thinner, lighter and uses less power.


Yeah, that's why I put 'subjective'.  Same with celluloid projection, you could make an eloquent argument for it (as Reno does above).

My beef with flatscreen is that most people still use them for mostly SD content - which, compared to the CRT they unnecessarily threw on a landfill (ooh, I got my eco-points back there! ) - looks decidedly crap.


----------



## Firky (Nov 18, 2012)

Sound was better on CRTs though, more internal space for the speakers to work properly. I keep meaning to buy a pair of 2.1s for my TV but I watch it that rarely it doesn't seem worth it.


----------



## Reno (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Yes, I'm going to have to change my viewing habits. I generally sit near the middle of the auditorium, as that suits me for field of view, but I guess I'll have to switch to further back. Also, I might try Imax for the more spectacular films, to see how that improves things.
> 
> Eta: sad that we are moving to inferior tech once again. For me:
> 
> ...


 
I don't hold with all that celluloid nostalgia at all and don't believe this is "inferior tech". Digital is different, but not inferior and it has a multitude of advantages. If you sit in the middle of the auditorium and you claim to see individual pixels in a reasonably large cinema, than either there is something wrong with the projection or you are imagining them.

I think the only reason to see a film at Imax is if they got shot that way, which isn't many (The Dark Knight Rises was the last one). Otherwise it's just a conventional film projected on an extremely large screen (which isn't that flattering for some films), often at a different aspect ratio for which it was composed, to fill that screen. Most of the "more spectacular films" get shot digitally now (like Skyfall) so what do you think you would gain from seeing them at Imax ?


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 18, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Yeah, that's why I put 'subjective'. Same with celluloid projection, you could make an eloquent argument for it (as Reno does above).
> 
> My beef with flatscreen is that most people still use them for mostly SD content - which, compared to the CRT they unnecessarily threw on a landfill (ooh, I got my eco-points back there! ) - looks decidedly crap.


I cunningly have never owned a telly.

I don't think I've ever landfilled anything that still worked and anything that's broken I've had a good go at getting it repaired first.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> I don't hold with all that celluloid nostalgia at all and don't believe this is "inferior tech". Digital is different, but not inferior and it has a multitude of advantages. If you sit in the middle of the auditorium and you claim to see individual pixels in a reasonably large cinema, than either there is something wrong with the projection or you are imagining them.
> 
> I think the only reason to see a film at Imax is if they got shot that way, which isn't many (The Dark Knight Rises was the last one). Otherwise it's just a conventional film projected on an extremely large screen (which isn't that flattering for some films), often at a different aspect ratio for which it was composed, to fill that screen. Most of the "more spectacular films" get shot digitally now (like Skyfall) so what do you think you would gain from seeing them at Imax ?


I certainly didn't imagine the pixels.  I work with post-processing (not in a high-powered way, but enough to know what I'm looking at).  The cinema I went to (Hackney Picture House) is very new, and well kitted-out.  I imagine they projected it as they intended.  Pixels were visible on the adverts and trailers too (I was hoping they were going to switch to a different system for the actual movie ).

I was just reading Roger Deakins talking about how he had done a seperate grading for the IMAX version of Skyfall, which made me wonder if there are other processes that might make it a better viewing experience for me.  But the film was shot on an Arri Alexa (maximum resolution 2880 x 2160) so no,  projecting on IMAX aint gonna solve any resolution issues (if anything they're gonna get worse).


----------



## Reno (Nov 18, 2012)

In that case your eyesight is truly superhuman. I work in post production and special effects and also know what to look out for, but can't see any pixels at the BAFTA cinema where I see most films and which screens most films digitally.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> In that case your eyesight is truly superhuman. I work in post production and special effects and also know what to look out for, but can't see any pixels at the BAFTA cinema where I see most films and which screens most films digitally.


I actually _do_ think this issue is linked to my eyesight.  I can see bus numbers and license plates far further than most people - even those who claim to have good eyesight.  No idea why - I spend hours glued to monitors and don't look after my eyes as well as I should.


----------



## Reno (Nov 18, 2012)

The only thing where I can see a slight difference is that with digital the black levels aren't as strong because the digital image simulates black, while celluloid produces a genuine black via the absence of light, but even that is minimal with cinema projectors. I watch films at home on a DLP projector where these things are a little more obvious, but it's not enough to bother me.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> The only thing where I can see a slight difference is that with digital the black levels aren't as strong because the digital image simulates black, while celluloid produces a genuine black via the absence of light, but even that is minimal with cinema projectors. I watch films at home on a DLP projector where these things are a little more obvious, but it's not enough to bother me.


Yeah, I watch DLP projection at home too, and love it.  It's just that I have a *very* different expectation of a cinema experience.  I want things to be as close to perfect as possible.

To be honest, I think sitting a bit further back is going to solve this for me - I can live with the field of view reduction.


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 18, 2012)

Corax said:


> I watched it at the local Odeon last night


Not Harbour Lights? Loser


----------



## Corax (Nov 18, 2012)

Sweet FA said:


> Not Harbour Lights? Loser


It wasn't on at Harbour Lights...


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 18, 2012)

Excuses, excuses.


----------



## Firky (Nov 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> In that case your eyesight is truly superhuman. I work in post production and special effects and also know what to look out for, but can't see any pixels at the BAFTA cinema where I see most films and which screens most films digitally.



I think the blacks and dark reds can be quite blocky. I thought it was because it may have been converted to digital. 

I take photos and have two eyes that blink.


----------



## Reno (Nov 18, 2012)

firky said:


> I think the blacks and dark reds can be quite blocky. I thought it was because it may have been converted to digital.
> 
> I take photos and have two eyes that blink.


 
You mean digital banding ? Can happen with my home projector and Blu-rays, shouldn't happen with a top of the range cinema projector and a digital print. Also, what has to be converted to digital ?


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 19, 2012)

After watching Skyfall, and thinking about digi projection, the cinematography, etc.  I came across this (frankly remarkable blog/forum) by the man himself:

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Went to see Skyfall at HackneyPicture House. Enjoyed the film. Didn't like the projection.
> 
> I can see pixels (especially jaggies on curved surfaces). I like to gaze around the scene from time to time - especially big landsapes. This is not so fun on digi.
> 
> ...


 
Are you sure this is not specific to this cinema? Picturehouse are variable in there projection quality.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

If you don't like digital you'll be fucking livid at 48 fps.


----------



## TitanSound (Nov 19, 2012)

Didn't we have a forum member who worked in a cinema and posted an excellent thread on the change over from old school projectors to digital a little while back?


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> If you don't like digital you'll be fucking livid at 48 fps.


I was just thinking about 48 fps this morning, and how potentially good it could be. I'd like to see variable speed projection - 24 fps for dialogue, and 48fps for action, pans, etc.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 19, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Are you sure this is not specific to this cinema? Picturehouse are variable in there projection quality.


I dunno - Hackney is a new cinema - everything is brand spanking new. Every other aspect of the presentation seemed perfect and well managed (to be fair there is nothing they can do about the image resolution - it is what it is (4k I think???)).


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> I dunno - Hackney is a new cinema - everything is brand spanking new. Every other aspect of the presentation seemed perfect and well managed (to be fair there is nothing they can do about the image resolution - it is what it is (4k I think???)).


 
I have found that Picturehouse unlike Curzon do not always get it right. Nor understand if u say something is wrong. Even if its new it might not be set up right. The trouble with digital is that cinemas just slot them in and have got rid of the projectionists.Who would see a problem. In one cinema I use the manager sets up most of the projection now.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> I was just thinking about 48 fps this morning, and how potentially good it could be. I'd like to see variable speed projection - 24 fps for dialogue, and 48fps for action, pans, etc.


 
Have you actually seen 48 fps?

It's horrible.


----------



## Reno (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Have you actually seen 48 fps?
> 
> It's horrible.


 
Where have you seen it and could you describe why it's horrible ? I have read various accounts, many negative but I'm intrigued. Could it have as much to do with the viewer having to adjust to a different look and experience ? In theory it sounds interesting.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 19, 2012)

8ball said:


> Have you actually seen 48 fps?
> 
> It's horrible.


But fast moving sequences and pans are terrible in the cinema. It would presumably help with that.

I shot some 50p footage the other day (as a test) - it was interesting - hyper-real, like a disturbing lucid dream. Could work for something. Problem is I couldn't even edit it, let alone distribute it anywhere.

Eta:  48fps would probably feel quite similar to 50i, I would have thought.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

Reno said:


> Where have you seen it and if yes, could you describe why it's horrible ? I have read various accounts, many negative but I'm intrigued. Could it have as much to do with the viewer having to adjust to a different look and experience ? In theory it sounds interesting.


 
Seen it used for a couple of small films and a mate's music video (not shot on film but recorded on DV with film-like filters added later - 'film on the cheap'). 
The filters were actually pretty good as it looked much better when every other was frame was removed and the rate cut in half.

It removes the velvety warmth of film - everything looks like _Holby City_ on the BBC HD channel.

I think people might get used to it over time, but there's something about that dreamlike quality of film on the light (and the relative relationship between exposure time and frame rate is part of that) that makes suspending disbelief and getting properly immersed in a film easier rather than harder. 

Maybe that's just something Pavlonian that won't matter when people haven't grown up with it, I suppose.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> But fast moving sequences and pans are terrible in the cinema. It would presumably help with that.
> 
> I shot some 50p footage the other day (as a test) - it was interesting - hyper-real, like a disturbing lucid dream. Could work for something. Problem is I couldn't even edit it, let alone distribute it anywhere.
> 
> Eta: 48fps would probably feel quite similar to 50i, I would have thought.


 
Yes, it can help with pans and fast sequences and that's one of the selling points.
I think you're right about it working for some things - slowed-down nature footage can look fantastic.
I don't want to be lumped with it for all cinema releases in the name of 'progress' (or hiking ticket prices), though.

I think 48 fps would be better than 50i (I hate interlacing).


----------



## Firky (Nov 19, 2012)

Reno said:


> You mean digital banding ? Can happen with my home projector and Blu-rays, shouldn't happen with a top of the range cinema projector and a digital print. Also, what has to be converted to digital ?


 
That is the fella! Couldn't think of the term, but digital banding it is. It can be really bad on some films, if there's a lot of shadow and night scenes. Not so bad that it ruins the film but it can detract from it somewhat. 

I meant converted from celluloid to digital.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 19, 2012)

killer b said:


> I agree. Don't much like it myself - fast action bits always seem jerky to my eyes


I have thought that fast action sequences in films recently have looked very confusing and jerky, but I'd not considered that that might be down to digital projection. I just thought it was shitty overuse of absurdly zoomy CGI in crap films.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 19, 2012)

Prefer digital. Hate scratchy, dusty celluloid making new films look old instantly.

I remember going to the cinema in the eighties as a kid and hating it. Even VHS was a better viewing experience.


----------



## Firky (Nov 20, 2012)

quentin tarantino ruined the cool of scratch film...


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I have thought that fast action sequences in films recently have looked very confusing and jerky, but I'd not considered that that might be down to digital projection. I just thought it was shitty overuse of absurdly zoomy CGI in crap films.


 
WTF is "absurdly zoomy CGI" ?


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

firky said:


> quentin tarantino ruined the cool of scratch film...


----------



## Firky (Nov 20, 2012)

Reno said:


> .


 
That looks aussie, sort of Aboriginal


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

Len Lye was one of the pioneers of experimental film-making, who worked by directly drawing and scratching on film stock. He was about as analogue as you can get.

Just thought as we were talking of scratchy film and the hyperbole was flying...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 20, 2012)

Reno said:


> WTF is "absurdly zoomy CGI" ?


CGI that zooms around between camera angles involving moving objects to such a degree that you just get fucking bored with it. See: Clash Of The Titans, and whatever the second Star Wars remake was called.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> CGI that zooms around between camera angles involving moving objects to such a degree that you just get fucking bored with it. See: Clash Of The Titans, and whatever the second Star Wars remake was called.


 
Maybe you should just try and watch better films then. I wasn't aware they'd remade Star Wars yet, btw.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> CGI that zooms around between camera angles involving moving objects to such a degree that you just get fucking bored with it. See: Clash Of The Titans, and whatever the second Star Wars remake was called.


with you all the way on that. the limitations of moving a real camera around bring things down to a human speed. i also dont like fast editing in 'exciting' sequences...its too fast for me. I seem to remember the last James Bond movie had a superfast edited opening sequnece that had me shouting 'slow down' at the screen -old-


----------



## ska invita (Nov 20, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> I actually _do_ think this issue is linked to my eyesight.


i see dead pixels


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 20, 2012)

Skyfall was all shot on one or two cameras, negating the - just cut really fast to anything - style of recent action flicks.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

ska invita said:


> with you all the way on that. the limitations of moving a camera around bring things down to a human speed. i also dont like fast editing in 'exciting' sequences...its too fast for me. I seem to remember the last James Bond movie had a superfast edited opening sequnece that had me shouting 'slow down' at the screen ld:


 
This is becoming a general whinge about films now and it has little to do with digital projection. CGI is a term invoked for all sorts of cinematic evils, even though it appears many people often don't know how and when it is used. In most cases CGI has absolutely nothing to do with camera moves. Unless it is an entirely digitally created scene, for most special effects shots an actual camera is used and then the effects get added later in post-production.

Unlike the incoherently shot and edited previous Bond film I thought the action scenes in Skyfall were shot and edited rather well. Maybe it's time to watch a few Merchant Ivory films.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 20, 2012)

Reno said:


> Unlike the incoherently shot and edited previous Bond film I thought the action scenes in Skyfall were shot and edited rather well. Maybe it's time to watch a few Merchant Ivory films.


To be fair I think Ska was on about QoS.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 20, 2012)

When I get a mo (which might not be for a while) I'm gonna do some research into pixel pitch and optimal viewing angles and such, and report back.

I bet you all can't wait.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> To be fair I think Ska was on about QoS.


 
That has the worst edited action scenes I have ever seen. Just had a whinge about it on the Skyfall thread the other day. Still doesn't have anything to do with either CGI or digital projection. It looked just as shit and headache inducing on conventional celluloid.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 20, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> To be fair I think Ska was on about QoS.


yes i was - thanks

but CGI movement (such as in the new star wars films) is annoying too


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

ska invita said:


> yes i was - thanks
> 
> but CGI movement (such as in the new star wars films) is annoying too


You find fast camera moves annoying. That can be done with a real or a CG camera and the effect is the same. It's not the computer that's at fault, it's the creative decision behind it.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 20, 2012)

Reno said:


> You find fast camera moves annoying. That can be done with a real or a CG camera and the effect is the same. It's not the computer that's at fault, it's the creative decision behind it.


yes. 
i love process though - process is everything.  call me old fashioned but a virtual slow pan cgi/greenscreen shot will never beat a slow pan real world tracking shot. Thats why a genuinely breathtaking bit of camera movement like in Soy Cuba or The Shining is always going to whip a similar camera movement in a CGI generated field.

Which isnt really what this thread is about...>>> i dont particularly have a problem with digital cameras and digital projection - I read once that the UK often gets sent old prints from the US, and so the quality is already down a fair bit from earlier plays...better clarity on the screen can only be a good thing (never noticed pixels on a big screen before tbh...have from DVD on a big TV though)


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2012)

The vast majority of films I watch don't contain CG cameras , so it's not something I regard as a major problem or annoyance. All you have to do is to watch something other that effects heavy blockbusters or CG animation.

I do however work with CG cameras on an almost daily basis.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Nov 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> Didn't we have a forum member who worked in a cinema and posted an excellent thread on the change over from old school projectors to digital a little while back?


As everyone else ignored you - here's the thread about digital projection.  And I'd forgotten until I searched for it that it was started by me...


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 21, 2012)

Well, this is all getting rather interesting.  First of all, I have spoken to the projectionist at Hackney Picture House, who was very generous (and honest) about how he evaluated my experience.  He basically confirmed what I was beginning to suspect: There are two projection systems in operation - 2k and 4k.  Hackney run 2K Christie digital projectors, which he admitted are not optimal for a screen as big as screen 1, for the reasons I mentioned in the OP.  He said that the cost of 4k had come down since they built the cinema, and that they may switch over at a future date.  He also said that The Hobbit is likely to be a game changer in forcing through 4k (and 48fps ).  He pointed out, quite reasonably, that the vast majority of cinemas were screening at 2k resolution.

Funnily enough he said - 'It all comes down to the differential between the price of the system, and the number of people who notice the difference' - lol.

Also, a representative of Sony Digital UK has been in touch with me as a result of this thread, and is going to arrange for me to go and see a 4k projection for comparison.  He's also sent me a tech whitepaper on image resolution, screen size, and viewing distance, which I am wading through at the moment.  All very exciting, and I will of course report back to you.


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 21, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> Even VHS was a better viewing experience.


You must be joking.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 21, 2012)

Bungle73 said:


> You must be joking.


 
The scratchy dusty look of celluloid at the cinema annoyed me. VHS didn't seem to have the same problem. Even back in the eighties I couldn't believe they hadn't developed something better. Couldn't believe it took til only recently where digital projection became the norm.


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 21, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> The scratchy dusty look of celluloid at the cinema annoyed me. VHS didn't seem to have the same problem. Even back in the eighties I couldn't believe they hadn't developed something better. Couldn't believe it took til only recently where digital projection became the norm.


You must have gone to a crap cinema.  Celluloid's image quality is far, far superior to VHS. Compared to celluloid a VHS image is a hazy fussy mess.  I know which I'd rather watch.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 21, 2012)

Bungle73 said:


> You must have gone to a crap cinema. Celluloid's image quality is far, far superior to VHS. Compared to celluloid a VHS image is a hazy fussy mess. I know which I'd rather watch.


 
I'm talking about many cinemas over a 20 year period. Dust and smudge and shit all over the reel magnified x 1000. No thanks.

I'm not saying VHS was good. I'm saying that it was a less annoying experience watching video on a smaller screen because you didn't see any of that.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 21, 2012)

VHS was my least favorite technology ever (apart from nuclear bombs or something).  I remember hours spent on the little fiddly 'tracking ' button. wtf?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> There are two projection systems in operation - 2k and 4k. Hackney run 2K Christie digital projectors, which he admitted are not optimal for a screen as big as screen 1, for the reasons I mentioned in the OP. He said that the cost of 4k had come down since they built the cinema, and that they may switch over at a future date. He also said that The Hobbit is likely to be a game changer in forcing through 4k (and 48fps ). He pointed out, quite reasonably, that the vast majority of cinemas were screening at 2k resolution.
> 
> .


 
Curzon Mayfair screen one is 2K and I don't notice any problem there.

 NFT screen one is Christie 2K . Which surprised me as I was sure I read somewhere they did have 4K

So unless the screen there is bigger Im not sure this is the problem.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2012)

Could it be to do with the optics? The lenses that are used in the projectors?

I do not think you were talking about screen door effect. But seeing pixels sometimes could be down to the lenses used?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen-door_effect


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2012)

Apollo cinema near Piccadilly circus has Sony 4K if anyone wants to try it.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 22, 2012)

Vue signed deal with Sony to convert its cinemas to 4K. This is now completed.

So thats Picturehouse for you. New cinema and they saved money short term by putting in 2K.


----------



## alsoknownas (Nov 22, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> Could it be to do with the optics? The lenses that are used in the projectors?
> 
> I do not think you were talking about screen door effect. But seeing pixels sometimes could be down to the lenses used?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen-door_effect


No, not screen door effect. Funny you should bring that up - I had a real problem with that at the screening facility at the college I went to. Which resulted in a conversation similar to this one, where everybody told me I wasn't seeing what I could clearly see  .

Around the edges of objects, particularly curves, the image (at the Picturehouse) looked a bit like this:






I'm pretty much convinced that resolution and viewing distance are the culprit. But I'm waiting till I do a 4k comparison to pass judgement.


----------



## AndrewBite (Nov 22, 2012)

Hi everyone, just a heads up, if you want to know where you can see a film from a 4K projector then the cinemas listed on this map are a good bet - http://www.facebook.com/SonyDigitalCinema/app_112437355527871

You will see that Vue, Showcase and Everyman sites are listed here and use Sony Digital Cinema 4K projection systems.


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 16, 2012)

Right so, I went to see The Hobbit this weekend - courtesy of Andrew above (who works for Sony).

First off - really enjoyed the film. Of course the scale of story is much narrower than LoTR, but it's an involving old romp through Middle Earth, with a good bit of adventure and humour thrown-in - and that does it for me.

Now, about the projection...

I watched it in 3D, and with the HFR system (48 frames per second). Interesting.

First off, the main issue I had at the other screening I went to (the reason for the OP) - screen resolution:
I was able to see trailers and adverts in 2D, and at 24fps for a fair comparison with the 2k projection system, and I'm pleased to say that all of my original problems with being able to see pixels and jaggies were not present this time around. In fact, I strolled around the auditorium during the ads, and sampled the picture quality at various distances from the screen, and didn't have any problem at any distance (I couldn't get down to the front few rows, but then I probably wouldn't watch a film down there anyway).
So it seems that 4k does make a significant difference over 2k (for me anyway).

Next - 3D. The Hobbit is a pretty good 3D film - in that the use of depth serves the story well, generally tries to enhance the immersion into the story world, and isn't gimmicky. However - it's just too bloody distracting most of the time. And I especially hate how it flattens big landscapes into a flat backdrop, leaving foreground figures hovering like paper cut-outs in front. I like 3D for digital animated movies like Beowulf or whatever, but for live-action I am going to stick to 2D from now on.

Then, _uh oh_ - HFR. Basically it's shit. I mean really shit (I actually considered walking out and watching it again at 24fps). It looks like someone on set made a 'making of' video on a camcorder, and then strung it together in the shape of the film. Everything looks fake, the fantasy world does not cohese properly - sets look like sets, prosthetics look like prosthetics, digital effects don't marry properly with the live footage. In other words - a disaster. I really was beginning to wonder what Peter Jackson was thinking of. Until...

Action sequences - as soon as there are dozens (or even thousands) of monsters and swords and teeth and arrows flying around, you suddenly see what HFR has to offer. The action sequences are _amazing_ at the increased rate - especially, funnily enough, the slow-motion sequences. In fact when there are monsters swarming around the screen the frame rate actually significantly helps to sell the effects.
Another strange thing - when I watch LoTR and see Gandalf and Bilbo, et al, I'm pretty aware most of the time that the height difference is being produced by some kind of trick (composite or perspective or whatever), but with HFR my brain really buys that there is a massive Wizard and a tiny Hobbit standing right there next to each other. Probably something to do with the way that we mentally accept that video footage represents 'reality', or something. I know this contradicts what I was saying about the effects being worse overall at 48fps, but that's just the way I experienced things.

So in summary -
4k good (I will choose when possible - though I would go to the Picturehouse and watch 2K again for certain movies, and sit well back).
3D - not for me thanks.
HFR - avoid (laughably you will in future have to pay extra for HFR screenings ). Perhaps if there was a 'video-look' film (like, erm... The Idiots or Blair Witch Project), or there was some compelling cinematic use of the frame rate then I might consider it.

Thanks to Andrew for arranging this for me  .


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

Bang on with the HFR - I hated it in general - was like a 'Lord Of The Rings Prequel TV Special'.

A couple of things in favour is that some of the big outside shots look really good and it somehow helped my brain process the 3D more fluidly (a minor plus given that I'm not the biggest fan of 3D anyway).


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 17, 2012)

Well... fair play to Jackson and the studios for giving it a go. It was a bold decision with such a big budget movie to do 48fps.

ersonally any movie subject matter involving wizards and goblins sends me to sleep so I haven't bothered with either LOTR or the Hobbit so I can't comment on this one but, technically speaking... couldn't they just remove half the frames to give it a more traditional film-like feel if one of the biggest complaints is the look from the frame speed?

I've noticed how faster processing on Smart TVs gives film-like TV dramas a more video-like look, It doesn't always sit right with me either. It throws you right back into the fact its a set, and they're acting.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> I've noticed how faster processing on Smart TVs gives film-like TV dramas a more video-like look, It doesn't always sit right with me either. It throws you right back into the fact its a set, and they're acting.


 
You might be talking about IFC (Intelligent Frame Creation) technology.

You can switch that shit off.


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 17, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> ... couldn't they just remove half the frames to give it a more traditional film-like feel if one of the biggest complaints is the look from the frame speed?


Yes, and in fact you can choose at the cinema whether you want to watch a 24fps or a 48fps (hfr) screening.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> Yes, and in fact you can choose at the cinema whether you want to watch a 24fps or a 48fps (hfr) screening.


 
There are two 24 fps versions and a slight surcharge if you want to see the version with the slightly-better-composed frames.


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> There are two 24 fps versions and a slight surcharge if you want to see the version with the slightly-better-composed frames.


You can actually watch it in 3 different aspect ratios if you include the IMAX version. I wonder how many actual versions of the film there are on offer (2D, 3D, IMAX, HFR, combinations thereof, etc. ).


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> You might be talking about IFC (Intelligent Frame Creation) technology.
> 
> You can switch that shit off.


 
Is that what its called? The first time I saw it I was watching 'Let The Right One In' for the first time. I thought the movie was filmed in HD video it was so sharp. The problem is, it blurs the line between what films are 'supposed' to look like and other more real stuff like the news and reality docs. So in a way it cheapens the effect, but at the same time makes it more real. It's a weird thing to look at anyway. Especially with old classic movies which you know the look of, and suddenly its the same thing... only like a sharp video version.


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 17, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> Is that what its called? The first time I saw it I was watching 'Let The Right One In' for the first time. I thought the movie was filmed in HD video it was so sharp. The problem is, it blurs the line between what films are 'supposed' to look like and other more real stuff like the news and reality docs. So in a way it cheapens the effect, but at the same time makes it more real. It's a weird thing to look at anyway. Especially with old classic movies which you know the look of, and suddenly its the same thing... only like a sharp video version.


35mm film has a far greater resolution than HD video.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 17, 2012)

Well... ok but you get what I mean.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> Well... ok but you get what I mean.


 
The frame rate thing is funny - some people don't even notice it, some hate it, some perceive it as extra 'sharpness' and some people even mistake it for 3d.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> You can actually watch it in 3 different aspect ratios if you include the IMAX version. I wonder how many actual versions of the film there are on offer (2D, 3D, IMAX, HFR, combinations thereof, etc. ).


 
That was an attempted joke about two versions for each set of frames.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 17, 2012)

It's weird how some people don't notice. It's like the fidelity of music and the difference between a 128k MP3 and lossless audio. It's unmistakable to my ears but so many people can't hear it.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> It's weird how some people don't notice. It's like the fidelity of music and the difference between a 128k MP3 and lossless audio. It's unmistakable to my ears but so many people can't hear it.


 
I guess their nervous systems have some compressed low bit-rate transmission going on.

Maybe they smell and taste in amazing panoramic olfacto-colour or something...


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> That was an attempted joke about two versions for each set of frames.


There actually are various ratios:


> *Cinematographic process*
> 
> Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
> Redcode RAW (5K) (dual-strip 3-D) (source format)
> ...


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/technical


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2012)

alsoknownas said:


> There actually are various ratios:


 
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ODD NUMBERS AND EVEN NUMBERS DAMMIT!!!


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 17, 2012)

8ball said:


> I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ODD NUMBERS AND EVEN NUMBERS DAMMIT!!!


Oh, I see!


----------

