Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
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...
Digital cinema - I don't like it
- Thread starter alsoknownas
- Start date
And I'd forgotten until I searched for it that it was started by me...
alsoknownas
some bloke
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.
). 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.
You must be joking.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
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
0891 50 50 50
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
some bloke
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
Well-Known Member
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
.
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
Well-Known Member
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
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
alsoknownas
some bloke
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
New Member
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.
You will see that Vue, Showcase and Everyman sites are listed here and use Sony Digital Cinema 4K projection systems.
alsoknownas
some bloke
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
.
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
Decolonise colons!
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).
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
0891 50 50 50
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.
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
Decolonise colons!
You might be talking about IFC (Intelligent Frame Creation) technology.
You can switch that shit off.
alsoknownas
some bloke
Yes, and in fact you can choose at the cinema whether you want to watch a 24fps or a 48fps (hfr) screening.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
There are two 24 fps versions and a slight surcharge if you want to see the version with the slightly-better-composed frames.
alsoknownas
some bloke
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
0891 50 50 50
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
0891 50 50 50
Well... ok but you get what I mean.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
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
Decolonise colons!
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
0891 50 50 50
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
Decolonise colons!
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
some bloke
There actually are various ratios:That was an attempted joke about two versions for each set of frames.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/technical
8ball
Decolonise colons!
alsoknownas
some bloke
Similar threads
