Digital cinema - I don't like it

[alsoknownas]

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]

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]

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

 

[killer b]

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

 

[Corax]

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]

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

 

[alsoknownas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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

 

[Maurice Picarda]

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

 

[Firky]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I watched it at the local Odeon last night

Not Harbour Lights? Loser

 

[Corax]

Not Harbour Lights? Loser

It wasn't on at Harbour Lights...

 

[Sweet FA]

Excuses, excuses.

 

[Firky]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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

 

[8ball]

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