Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Cinemas Get 3D Projection Rollout

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the reach-out-and-touch-someone dept.

Movies 151

CNETNate writes "The largest chain of cinemas in Britain, Odeon, has become the first chain to fully roll out 3D projection technology in its theaters. These new projectors will deliver 3D images at a resolution of 2K (2,048x1,080 pixels). Many major cities in the UK will now be able to project the new 3D movies coming out of Hollywood, without it being referred to as a novelty offered in one or two locations."

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Back to the Future 3D (1, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825007)

Cue motion sickness and minimum wage cleaning staff quitting their jobs in 3.... 2....

Too close (4, Funny)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825017)

I always make the mistake of sitting too close and then having the 3D objects end up projected behind me.

3d? (4, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825057)

Clearly the most profitable use of 3D is going to be the pornography market.
And lets face it, who want's that in a public space...

Re:3d? (2, Interesting)

Just because I'm an (847583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825245)

Well it seems there are at least some people of the same opinion given this news [sgforums.com] . Seems there's nothing these new economies are going to miss out on... ;-)

And glasses... (1)

vegaspace (1253656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825061)

Cool. Have we to use the same ugly bichromatic len glasses or they improve them too? Default glasses are not very confortable. Do you?

Re:And glasses... (5, Funny)

d0mokun (1227718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825107)

Yoda? Is that you?

Re:And glasses... (2, Funny)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825129)

Nope, now they use lenses that are circularly polerized. One CW the othe CCW. Doesn't make any fucking sense to me but I dont have to know how it works, I just have to vomit and make the cleanign staff weep.

Re:And glasses... (2, Informative)

French31 (1311051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825179)

Soon, you won't have to wear glasses for 3D films. Check this out. [guardian.co.uk]

Re:And glasses... (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825265)

When I arrived at the airport of Shenzhen (southern China) over a year ago, there was a TV display showing 3D images which could be seen without any visual aid...
I dumbly took a picture but the effect would obviouly not show in it... still it surprises me that it has not become de standard yet... why do we need this sort of coloured or polarised lenses when it can be totally achieved without ?
I'm sure that the Chinese company hasn't patented the system (cue to IP jokes, 3..2..1) so it should be fairly easy to do... even with prior art

Re:And glasses... (1)

mattr99_uk (1195893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825413)

The sort of technology you are talking about only works from a very limited viewpoint. The picture wouldn't look right from lots of different angles so it's not suitable for a cinema (or anywhere with more than a small number of people). It's a shame though, it would be nice to have a 3D tv like that.

Re:And glasses... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825485)

As if you had someone to watch TV with...

If yes, then why are you posting on Slashdot? ;)

Re:And glasses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26826667)

It's not true 3D unless parallax works.

Re:And glasses... (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827475)

Those things never worked for me because I have one strongly dominant eye. All's I ever got out of it was a monochrome image :(

3D films out of Hollywoord (1)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825067)

At any rate, it didn't make sense to watch movies that were made in 3D and then watch them in 2D.

Reality: (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825081)

The reality is closer to this:

Bugger! People don't want to pay £15 to sit for hours in a dirty, smelly, sticky cinema to watch disgusting, blurry, washed-out reproductions of Hollywood movies that take twenty minutes to start (while accusing them of everything from theft to supporting terrorism), where a hot dog costs more than the ticket, the drinks are 99.999% water and the staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.

The madmen would rather sit at home in comfort with their HDTV's and get a better quality image close up! What are they thinking?!

Hey, we need to get our customers back, so let's add a useless 3D element to our movies that everybody has been able to do but nobody has cared about in the last fifty years!

Seriously, the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London, there were about three people in there, including me. They need a new gimmick and they think it will bring back the audiences. It won't. The problem isn't the type of movie projection - it's the quality of the systems (all the films I've seen this year have been blurry, out of focus and even when in focus look very horrible), the atmosphere of the cinema (which is all-but-gone now), the service recieved and the price you pay. I can OWN a copy of a film cheaper than I can go to the cinema once, and it will "appear" better quality because I'm closer to a higher-quality screen. Plus, I can pause it to get a real hotdog, or I can invite friends over.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825153)

That pretty much sums up the Odeon. Cineworlds staff are pretty clean, but then again, they probably can afford to buy soap from all the money the steal from us from the extra-overpriced snacks... I mean, £7.50 for a 'small' fizzy drink...
then again, they do have a reasonably priced bar in the one I go to :)

Re:Reality: (3, Insightful)

AndyboyH (837116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825171)

To be fair, most local cinemas to me are always packed on the 'cheap' night - Orange Wednesday (for those of you not in the UK - the mobile phone operator gives you 2 for 1 on a cinema ticket for a screening on Wednesday if you text them)

But despite all the failings of the communal cinema experience that you mention - for me, it's kind of worth it just to get better sound. I've got decent THX-certified 5.1 speakers - but I've not set them up correctly, because the layout of my living room's prohibiting putting the satellites where they're meant to be. Nevermind when I have to turn the sofa 90 degrees for the projector and the left channel is now behind me.

Sometimes that's worth £6-7 each. Nevermind my fiancee feeling like it's a 'treat' lol

Re:Reality: (1)

symes (835608) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825193)

"the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London"

I can think of few places "10 minutes from London" that aren't

"dirty, smelly, [and] sticky"

But apart from that, yes, I agree, cinema must fade. I just hope that people don't start applying the same argument to live theatre - that's one form of entertainment that's perilously close to extinction - but perhaps theatre companies could start offering 'in home' plays where they act in front of your HDTV?

Re:Reality: (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826531)

Why must cinema fade? That's a fun experience usually (depends where you go). I suppose I'm biased as we tend to go drinking afterwords but still. Give me cinema over theater any day.

Re:Reality: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825217)

First of all, you can't "own" a copy of any cinema film, not unless you happen to be a Hollywood mogul - at least, not in the sense that ownership actually allows you to do what you want with your property.

With that out of the way - mate, you really must go to some shit cinemas. The ones I go to - and I normally go in Brighton or Worthing - are fairly clean and non-blurry and the staff are no less or more "dirty, smelly and sticky" (do you have some sort of cleanliness OCD thing going on?) than your average geek. OK, a lot cleaner than your average geek.

As for atmosphere - Worthing has the beautiful and historic Dome cinema [worthingdome.com] . If you want somewhere that doesn't just show the big budget Hollywood, Brighton has the Duke of York's Picturehouse [picturehouses.co.uk] . As for popularity, the Brighton Odeon is mostly 3/4 full when I go to see mainstream films in the evening - of course you're going to get fewer patrons for the Monday morning showing of a random cartoon, but what do you want them to do, cancel the film because you feel lonely?

As for hotdogs, can't you just learn to keep your cakehole shut for a couple of hours and enjoy a film? If you walked into a great store but that store also sold over-priced chocolates at the entrance, would that detract from your experience once inside the store? If you're diabetic or have renal failure, bring in some sweets and a bottle of water; I get thirsty too often and carry a bottle of water with me wherever I go, and no-one's yet told me I can't drink.

Re:Reality: (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825469)

There are more often than not sign stating that you may only consume beverages and food purchased on the premises.

I find that a large McDonalds coke bought from next door is just as flat, has just as much ice, and costs 1/3 of the price. Popcorn I don't care for, and I dare anybody to tell me that my pack of Maltesers wasn't bought from their again overpriced sweet counter.

Hell, I could walk into our "Deluxe" screen with a tin of wife-beater and they couldn't do a thing. They sell it behind the bar (again, for 3x what is costs in the supermarket).

Re:Reality: (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825601)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past I've been told that cinemas make next to nothing off the actual ticket selling and make most of their money from the consumables they offer.

The whole reason consumables are so expensive is because it's the only way the can make any money (except raising ticket prices, which would stop anyone coming).

Re:Reality: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826651)

Doesn't that prove the OPs' point? Cinema theatres are dead. Their business model is outdated and they're floundering. High quality audio and image resolutions are available off the shelf in your local Tesco / Walmart store. If they need to prop up cheap ticket prices with overpricing their sweeties, they're truly screwed.

I suppose I always have the choice of not having a drink or nibble for a couple of hours, and often that's exactly what I do. I just don't believe that I should have to pay well over twice the market value of an item simply based on the location I choose to consume it.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26826519)

apparently in the UK: wife-beater = Stella Artois

In the US a wife-beater is sleeveless undershirt, and Stella is, frequently, considered a vaguely high-end import.

Re:Reality: (2, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826587)

BAAAAAHAHAHAHA! I never believed US beer could be as awful as "they" say it is until I read that last sentence.

Stella is the chilled pig-wee of the underclass, no matter what those poncey pseudo-French adverts tell you.

Re:Reality: (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827679)

That truly is amusing to learn :)

I drink stella when it's on offer for cheap and there's nothing else better, but I do know a lot of people who do feel they're being "fancy" by drinking some other country's bland lager.

Just for curiosity's sake, let me throw this out there: Around here (East coast US) Stella usually goes for anywhere between 6 and 9 dollars a six-pack, or (on average) 4 dollars for 16oz on draft. Anyone care to give me a price-check on what it's like in the UK?

Re:Reality: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827881)

A pint of Stella Artois in one of my local pubs is £2.70 a pint, but that's suburbs. Inner city (Birmingham) you'll pay about £3.50. Peeterman Artois is a whole different story, by the way. It's not over 5%, it has a great flavour from being brewed with corriander, and it's often a lot cheaper than Stella.

If you want a really good lager, get something Czech like Budweiser Budvar, if they sell it in the US. I understand ale isn't that popular in the US, but if you get the chance, I've never found a beer I didn't like from the Wychwood brewery.

Re:Reality: (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825775)

Not many people have the luxury of going to a decent cinema, though the Brixton Ritzy is a nice old place and close to where I live. Brighton is likely to be an exception, being a vibrant and young town.

The M25 belt *is* exceptionally crappy though.

Last few times I've been to a cinema (other than the Ritzy) it's been almost empty, but then I don't watch blockbusters or chick-flicks, I watch the obscure sci-fi.

Re:Reality: (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826011)

Brighton is actually pretty sucky for cinemas. The Duke Of York is pretty good but to everyone's taste. When it comes to mainstream releases, there's a choice of two cinemas. The Odeon is quite nice but only has 8 screens, most of them quite small, and the Marina is a bit run down and hard to get to if you're not a driver. That's not a lot of screens considering Brighton's catchment area, so it's not a surprise that the Odeon tends to be quite full.

Re:Reality: (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826809)

First of all, you can't "own" a copy of any cinema film, not unless you happen to be a Hollywood mogul - at least, not in the sense that ownership actually allows you to do what you want with your property.

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic, or swallowing the fud about copyright being property. He never claimed that he could do those things - he clearly meant "own" in the "Own it now on DVD" sense, i.e., owning the physical item, as is the most common usage of the term. He never claimed he could own the copyright. (Indeed, he even explicitly stated "own a copy", not "own the film".)

As for hotdogs, can't you just learn to keep your cakehole shut for a couple of hours and enjoy a film?

No, but if I can't enjoy a snack or drink as I watch (except at their prices), why bother at all? That's all the more reason to enjoy it at home.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy an occasional trip to the cinema, but I think he makes some valid points.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26828777)

No, but if I can't enjoy a snack or drink as I watch (except at their prices), why bother at all?

You can't take all your clothes off and get your old man out in a cinema either. These and many other "home is better because I can do X at home as well" arguments are no more than ways of saying "actually, the film doesn't interest me enough to just spend a couple of hours watching a film". In this case, yes, you're probably not the kind of person to enjoy the cinema, but it doesn't make cinema dead.

Anyway, have you ever seen someone chucked out for discreetly drinking some bottled water or chewing on a sweet? I'm not talking about bringing in a Big Mac and fries - if you do that then I'll be happy to help you out the way you came in, as I don't want to hear and smell you throughout the film.

Oh, and lol@the argument that cinema is dead because they must make the money on the accessories. By the same argument, open source is dead because the base product is always free.

Finally, it's also depressing to see how spoilt people are on Slashdot that they think everyone can afford a home cinema experience. I speak as someone who had an uncle working in broadcasting build a real cinema in the attic of the old family home in the '60s, using furnishings from a former commercial cinema. That, for its time, was a home cinema experience - I expect most people's "home cinema" today is just a moderately large widescreen TV and surround sound. Oh well, you put long hours into paying for a couple of ready-made boxes and sticking a few cables together, I guess you have to justify it somehow.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825229)

You have friends?

Re:Reality: (3, Interesting)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825273)

The madmen would rather sit at home in comfort with their HDTV's and get a better quality image close up! What are they thinking?!

Although HDTV is still a niche market at the moment, I am sure the fact people have better home entertainment systems is making it less attractive for many people to go to the Cinema.

I think there is still a sizable market for Cinemas, but they need to start evaluating what the market wants rather than continuing blindly on their current path. I would like to see Cinemas trying out the following business plan:
1/ Include some smaller screens, perhaps as little as 15' in smaller rooms.
2/ Provide a broader range of content. Things like showing certain TV shows (24 / BSG / Lost), older films.
3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.

Currently cinemas only pander to the blockbuster market, but this ignores a lot of potential.

Re:Reality: (1)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825353)

I remember seeing "A Clockwork Orange", back when, in a cinema near Piccadilly that had many small screens, each seating 30 - 50 (it WAS almost 40 years ago). I thought, then, that it made a lot of sense, and for anything but "Star Wars: Episode IV", or something, I still do.

2048x1080??? That's never going to get me out of the house.

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825783)

Actually, the 2048x1080 is not as bad as it seems.

If you ever watched a decent digital projection (DLP), you would not notice any pixels at a comfortable viewing distance. It is much better than the unstable, often blurry and scratched picture you get from traditional film. Also you don't suffer from the shutter effect (the fact that the picture goes totally dark 24 times every second) that any traditional projection system has. Also, the film granularity will probably not be better than that anyway or you should go for 70mm (nowadays almost extinct) or even better: IMAX (which is 70mm horizontally aligned).

Here in Belgium, we have a big chain that rolled out digital cinema years ago and most multiplexes now have about 40~60% (estimation) of their screens equipped with digital projectors and every cinema has at least one screen equipped with Dolby 3D gear.

The 3D is not something I go to a cinema for, it doesn't really improve the experience that much and most 3D fare up until now focused to much on the shiny new possibilities instead of story.

The chain I am talking about actually is quite decent (although it has had its ups and downs) and the experience I got watching my last movie there (Slumdog Millionaire) was far more impressive and immersive than any HD home experience could offer: Big screen, high picture quality and perfect sound.

They seem to have a mix that works:
- Clean and quite well maintained theaters
- Staff that actually does its job (at least the outlet I tend to visit; I've been seeing the same faces for years now)
- Comfortable seating, which is not quite common in most theaters.
- A large number of screens and digital technology allow them to show special features you only would see in a cheap "arthouse cinema".
- They tend to keep up with new developments, so they can stay ahead of the home-theater competition by offering something new: e.g. digital projection and 3D.

As far as I can judge, they perform quite well. I've not seen an empty theater in years at the least.

Re:Reality: (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825537)

Allow people to hire the smaller screens

It's actually possible to do this.

perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch.

And this shouldn't be too hard. The cinema has a relationship with the distributors.

Re:Reality: (1)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825839)

HDTV isn't going to remain niche for very long. You can hardly buy a non-HD TV these days and the Sky HD receiver has dropped in price to only fifty quid, and currently offers over 30 HD channels. Sky is also planning to offer 3D HDTV - now that's going to be a niche market for a while.

Add in the forthcoming Freeview HD channels and HD will be very much mainstream in Britain by the end of this year.

Re:Reality: (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825957)

3/ Allow people to hire the smaller screens, perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch. These screens could also be used by gaming tournaments etc.

What, so that you could watch what was going on at the gaming tournament while you sat in the theater? This makes zero sense. I got a 2200 lumens XGA projector for $400 used, you can get them for that new almost now, this is adequate for this purpose and you can set it up in the convention hall where you're actually having the tournament instead of in the theater where there's no room to set up a PC anyway.

The whole point of a theater is to provide a screen bigger than you can get elsewhere. Projectors cost nothing now. This idea would only serve to drive them out of business faster than they're going already (but good riddance.)

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26826755)

Mmm, public Battlestar marathon, miniseries followed by all 4 series, back to back with toilet break after each series - who's with me?

If we start now, we can just about fit it all in in time for the series 4 finale in a couple of months time...

umm.. (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26828487)

24 hours of the original series
10 episodes of 1980
3 hour miniseries
67 episodes of the new version
27 webisodes

(scraped from wikipedia)

- we could do it in like 5 and a half days, in a week sleeping minimally

Re:Reality: (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825327)

I think most American theaters were like this years ago. All the mainstream theaters i've been to recently were very well kept (but still expensive). They usually have the movie you want to see in normal, Digital, and Director seating for both. Director seating costs a few dollars more but there's a whole lot more room, comfy seats, and staff that will get you whatever you want to eat/drink during the movie. Imax is sexy too :)

Re:Reality: (1)

virtualsid (250885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825439)

Seriously, the last four or five times I went into a cinema in a large town not 10 minutes from London, there were about three people in there, including me.

Odd, the last few times I've been to the cinema just outside London boroughs (in Epsom - and not on the Orange Wednesdays offers), it's been rammed full, and had a high proportion of idiots who decide they'll check/send text messages while the film is on, or even have conversations with pals that are sitting next to them, or on the 'phone.

I've pretty much stopped going to the cinema now, because the tickets are expensive, the number of retards who seem to go there to not actually watch the movie is too high, and, the seats seem to be kicked too easily by the people behind you.

I did like going to the cinema, but, with a Lovefilm subscription and lots of blu-rays, and my choice of time to watch the films, it just doesn't seem to make sense anymore.

Re:Reality: (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825555)

staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.

I for welcome our new dirty/smelly/sticky overlords erm can I have fries with that :)

Re:Reality: (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825717)

When people didn't have TV's the movie industry could market its products cheap and rely on sheer numbers of people showing up to bring their revenue up.
Now they have to market themselves a luxury service. It seems to me that most people who go to the cinema are doing it because it feels like a little splurge, it is doing something different and a bit expensive.
People don't go because it is a better cinematic experience, they go because it is a cheep date or night out.

Re:Reality: (1)

papabob (1211684) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825849)

while accusing them of everything from theft to supporting terrorism

Those info is ok for people who would shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. And would go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!

Re:Reality: (1)

MrPloppy (1117689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825851)

I like my local Cinema very much. Its one of the oldest purpose built Cinemas in existence. They show a fantastic range of Cinema from Asian, French, Spanish, British and even US releases. Actually many movies I have seen there I don't own because I never heard of them before. Its a fantastic place to find about all kinds of interesting film. Not to mention the incredible coffee, home made cakes and great roof top bar! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York's_Picture_House [wikipedia.org]

Re:Reality: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825993)

I can OWN a copy of a film

Incorrect. In capitalist America, the MPAA owns you.

Where's the 2160p??? (1)

redstar427 (81679) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826723)

I thought they were supposed to move to 2160p (3840x2160 - 4 times better than 1080p), so that people could experience at the theater, what they could not get at home.

This is too little, too late.
Plus, all the reasons stated above, it has very little value.

3D makes a difference (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826817)

I saw Coraline in a 3D theater last weekend and I was surprised how effective it was. I left the theater and passed a flat screen tv, and it looked weird without the depth cues.

Over the next decade, we'll see a transition to 3D movies and you'll start seeing 3D setups at home as well (first for games, such as the solution being offered by NVidia). Eventually 3D will roll out to the masses and people will go back and convert the classic 2D movies into 3D. Old people will cry out that 2D is the way it was supposed to be watched, but companies will do it anyway and consumers will buy them up.

Re:Reality: (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827329)

Hey, we need to get our customers back, so let's add a useless 3D element to our movies that everybody has been able to do but nobody has cared about in the last fifty years!

Not just useless - in some cases, detrimental. Because of the visual impairment I have and the way my brain learned to deal with it, I don't have proper stereoscopic vision. My brain uses the picture from the dominant eye, and then fills in whatever's left with my other eye.

Aside from not having any depth perception, this also means that '3D' films are, at best, not 3D, and at worst, unwatchable and migraine-inducing. More 3D movies means less movies I can actually watch, and thus less money to the studios from myself and other people with visual impairments.

They're already out in some places. (2, Informative)

AndyboyH (837116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825101)

Last year in Leicester Square (London), I saw the godawful Beowulf movie in 3D.

Last week in Tyneside (Northern England), I saw the godawful 'My Bloody Valentine' movie in 3D.

The cinemas already seem to be getting the upgrades coming through. I just hope Hollywood gets a similar upgrade to stop churning out such garbage using 3D recording techniques.

Re:They're already out in some places. (5, Insightful)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825249)

why would they stop? it's working, you're watchin those movies in the cinema

Re:They're already out in some places. (1)

AndyboyH (837116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825385)

I suspect like most attendees, I was watching more for novelty than for content. A film about a gas mask wearing murderous miner doesn't exactly scream quality and production values.

But when the initial 'early adopter' phase passes - the falling attendances (and reduction on RoI) should mean that they'll need to either up the quality and produce movies that are both as sound in writing and acting as they are in visual trickery, or adopt a new trick.

Re:They're already out in some places. (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825603)

A film about a gas mask wearing murderous miner doesn't exactly scream quality and production values.

Like any other topic, it really depends on the writer, director, and actors.

A really good crew can make a great movie about making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch.

2048x1080? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825113)

Shouldn't a 3D screen have a third dimension to its resolution?

Re:2048x1080? (2, Informative)

camcorder (759720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825183)

No, because it's not pysical 3D just an illusion.

good call actually (0)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826065)

No, he's right. And in fact, if the 2d resolution is used to encode 3D, then the first 2D should almost certainly decrease, as the 3rdD is added.

Re:2048x1080? (3, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825267)

It's actually stereoscopic projection (two images, one image for each eye), not full 3D.

So it should be 2048x1080 x2.

Re:2048x1080? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825367)

That's not correct. Pixel number is 2048x1080. There's no third dimension, let alone "2 pixels" depth. Two images overlap eachother, not one of them is above or below the other one.

Re:2048x1080? (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826797)

And thats not entirely accurate either, as although the light is being emitted from the same area for each image, its polarised differently, such that there are in fact two full pixels of color information per 2-dimensional pixel, although only discernable once appropriately filtered.

So although it may not be encoded along the z spatial axis, there is a third dimension to the "image" - one that is 2 pixels "deep"

Re:2048x1080? (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826921)

The third dimension is time. 3D movies have to deliver frames twice as fast because they're sending different ones to each eye.

Re:2048x1080? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825449)

Well in fact this is a piss-poor resolution for a cinema. You can buy 1920x1080 projectors for about a grand. I would expect cinemas to be using the full res used by Hollywood which is more like 4000x2000 IIRC.

Next thing is frame rate (2, Insightful)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825127)

This is great news but when I say an IMAX movie the one thing that I really noticed was that 24 frames per sec looks really naff, and can even cause a headache, when everything else is so realistic.

Since the Odeon system is digital I guess it is possible to overscan it and use clever motion interpolation to make movement look smooth, like some of the newer HDTVs do now. Anyone know if they do this?

Otherwise with decreasing storage costs the native frame rate of the films will hopefully get up to 70+ fps soon.

Re:Next thing is frame rate (2, Informative)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825349)

> Since the Odeon system is digital I guess it is possible to overscan it and use clever motion interpolation to make movement look smooth

Who cares about problems with frame rate when the resolution is 2,048 x 1,080 pixels?! A fairly standard 40 inch TV is close to that resolution so just IMAGINE how shit that's going to look on a 40 foot wide screen.

Even the 4K digital projectors look pretty crap compared to 35mm analog film reels. The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 2-4 times higher than any current digital system. The advantages though, are that digital projection has no dust or frame jitter. Unless they get the resolution up to at least 10,000 pixels horizontally, I don't really think digital projection is worth bothering with unless you're using a fairly small screen (by cinema standards I mean).

Re:Next thing is frame rate (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825683)

From personal experience seeing Quantum of Solace and Transformers in digital format as well as analogue, I can safely say that the digital format was a lot sharper and more defined than the analogue format.

Personally I prefered the digital format, the quality difference wasn't that noticable, I only really realised the difference at the start of the movie (when I wasn't immersed in it).

I have no idea what projectors the cinemas were using, so I can't comment on that.

Has anyone had a similair experience with digital projections, or am I alone in prefering the digital projection?

Re:Next thing is frame rate (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825881)

There's some element of it being an optical illusion because there's no frame jitter.

I'm not saying that digital is horrible - I'm just saying it definitely a lot lower resolution, but I actually agree that I think it looks better if you're sitting a fair way back from the screen as I really hate frame jitter.

Re:Next thing is frame rate (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825883)

I haven't seen enough quality setups to make an informed judgement, but the quality of film projection in 90% of the cinemas I've seen has been plain bad. With digital projection it seems that it's much easier to get reasonably high quality on the screen.

I also doubt that 35mm really does have an edge over the latest digital cinematic cameras. Plus the fact that most movies go through 2K digital post-production anyway.

Re:Next thing is frame rate (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825905)

The angular size of the 40 inch TV and the 40 foot wide screen is going to be pretty similar. So the angular size of the pixels is likewise going to be similar.

Re:Next thing is frame rate (2, Insightful)

elvum (9344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826137)

The effective resolution of a 35mm film print is about the same as HDTV. Film productions tend not to use the slow, fine-grain films that you need for recording fine detail, and the process of producing successive prints for distribution reduces the detail even further.

Also, don't forget that although the cinema screen might be twelve times bigger than a television, you'll probably be sitting twelve times further away.

Re:Next thing is frame rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26826171)

Isn't IMAX 48fps?

Another dimension? (3, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825133)

Why not add another dimension to the stories and let them go from 1 dimension to 2 dimensions. (and 1 dimension is even a stretch for some movies)

'Fully' roll out? (4, Informative)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825151)

Hardly. Your announcement concerns getting them into 30 cinema and their longer term plans are only to put them into 75 out of 110 of their cinemas [gizmodo.com] .

Re:'Fully' roll out? (1)

mattr99_uk (1195893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825383)

They are not the first chain to do it either! I know of at least one chain (Cineworld) that has 3D screens in some of there cinemas (Cardiff has two screens, it's a shame the cinema is crap overall).

Re:'Fully' roll out? (1)

elvum (9344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826155)

I've been watching 3D films at Odeon cinemas for over a year - this isn't their first rollout of 3D-capable projectors.

Given that it's Britain... (2)

stripyd (614714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825161)

Are we sure they aren't 3D *cameras*?

You insensitive cloMd! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26825225)

not going to play morning. Now I have

3D Movies? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825341)

What 3D "holywood" movies are there (except for the occasional 3D animation)?

Re:3D Movies? (1)

Randy Savage (1465063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825505)

My bloody valentine.

Re:3D Movies? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827527)

to name a few...

Journey to the Center of the Earth
Superman Returns
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Beowulf (show this in two screens at once and you have a cluster...)

And I've seen most of these at Cineworld here in the UK who have been running 3D films at almost all of their cinemas for a couple of years...

The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825351)

FTFA:

"The UK's Odeon chain is installing 3D projectors in many of its cinemas. These new projectors will deliver 3D images at a resolution of 2K (2,048x1,080 pixels). To put that in context, that's roughly twice the resolution of a movie on a Blu-ray disc"

Where do they get their "twice the resolution?" blu-ray/hi-def is 1920x1080. We're only talking a difference of less than 7% - not "roughly twice the resolution."

I doubt may slashdotters would consider the lower-res 1280x720 as "really hi-def" any more.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825727)

Bear in mind that 3D projections require 2 images to be projected, meaning that the resolution is infact 2x(2048x1080).

That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to what they're saying, it's a bit misleading for the general public (as they wouldn't know what resolution Blu-ray is running at), but I guess the whole point is to talk the new projectors up as much as possible.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825799)

Another reasonable conclusion is that the writer was confused and thought that 2k cinema resolution is equivalent to 2048p. While there are valid reasons for it it is a little odd that TV resolution is typically measured in vertical lines and cinema tends to be measured in horizontal lines.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825949)

Just thought I'd point out that a lot Blu-Ray movies don't even have that resolution, but 1920x800 because they were made with the cinemascope aspect ratio.
Why they couldn't just make downscaling standard is beyond me.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26826045)

ok lets start at some basic mathematics for you.

2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch

not if you divide 2211840/1382400 = 1.6
which when rounded to a whole number is 2.

so it is approximately twice the resolution.
as 1.6 x(1920x1080) = (2048x1080)

when talking about resolution remember you are talking about the number of pixels per inch not the 2 numbers you are multiplying by. The only reason you even get told those numbers is to differentiate between height and width.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

DJGrahamJ (589019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826419)

2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch

No, it simply means 2211840. No units in the operands means no units in the result.

1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch

Same, but this time you're referring to a resolution that nothing uses.

"Full HD" is 1920x1080=2073600 so the theater only has 6.25% more pixels than a home "Full HD" screen.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826607)

ok lets start at some basic mathematics for you.

2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch

Here's some more basic mathematics for you: 1080 and 720 are not the same number. Your comparison is off by an order of magnitude because of that.

The comparison is between 1920x1080 and 2048x1080. The figures are:
2048x1080: 2,211,840 pixels.
1920x1080: 2,073,600 pixels.
The difference being a factor of 1.0666. 6.6%, not 60%.

The figures you mentioned aren't in pixels per inch either, unless the screen has the dimensions of 1x1 inch. That would be a little underwhelming.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26827045)

2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch
1920 by 720 means 1382400 pixels per inch

Here's some more basic mathematics for you: 1080 and 720 are not the same number. Your comparison is off by an order of magnitude because of that.

Actually he might have a point if 2K cinema projection actually used the full 2048x1080 pixels even for wider aspect ratios than 16:9 and then projected them with an anamorphic lens. I have no idea if they do this, but it would be smart.

Re:The article if a "fluff piece" (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826481)

The truth is a little less exciting:

To put that in context, that's nearly the resolution of a typical 24" monitor you might have at home.

I only have one good eye you insensitive clod (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825361)

So the thought of cinemas going 3d does not really fill me with the warm and fuzzies.

But if they do all go 3d, maybe I can sue under some sort of disabilities act and get a gazillion dollars !!?!?!?! (or one free hotdog from the concession stand - its all about the same)

Porn? (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825495)

I am surprised we aren't hearing about this being used in a porn as that's where "new" technology usually shows up first. Are they slipping or is it so gimmicky porn directors won't even touch it?

Re:Porn? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26827585)

For 3D to work you really need to keep the camera steady. Steady cameras isn't porn's strong point...

The movie theatre sucks (1, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825639)

I'll pay $15 to see a movie when the resolution is 50,400 x 31,500, otherwise I'll rent it for $3 and watch it at home.

Oscar Deutsch Entertains Our Nation (3, Interesting)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825673)

Once upon a time, directors would use different film with different grain size to effect a desired mood for an act.

In this modern era of digital recording and projection, where any visual artifact may simply be a by-product of the video compression algorithm, I think that Hollywood needs to come up with more compelling and entertaining story lines than simply relying on the "new shiny" effect.

I think that they are finally running out of ideas to recycle.

Anyways, kudos to ODEON for trying to take some initiative to lure people out of their homes and into the cinemas. Alas, I have moved to La La Land where the projectors are old and creaky and routinely scratch the film after the first couple of showings. Not to mention the defects in the screen, rips, tears and unidentifiable stains, which mar the viewing quality.

Which reminds me of my other rant - will someone please clean the screen at Disney's California Adventure's California Soaring attraction? It just keeps getting worse: First a palm print, then something which looks like a coffee stain. Come on, Disney... It's been like that for at least 3 years already! It ruins the effect!

You'd thunk that Los Angeles would have the most up-to-date and well maintained entertainment technology for the theatre patrons to enjoy but it simply isn't so. And the art/small projects which actually do have a story line rarely get wide screenings, if at all.

I miss the old ODEON in Aylesbury... Shame that they deliberately left a grade 1 listed building derelict so that it will become structurally unsound to allow property developers an excuse to tear it down.

TFA is crap, 2M not 2K (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26825939)

2048x1024 is 2M not 2K.
2K display would be say 64x32 pixels, which is much worse than nokia phones 10 years ago. I bet few people would like to watch movies like that, it would be lovwer res than terminal Star Wars [blinkenlights.nl] .

TFA has also other error - that 2048x1024 is "half" (should be quarter) of 4096x2048.

Yet another article by ignorant.

Re:TFA is crap, 2M not 2K (2, Insightful)

Jagen (30952) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826145)

Speaking of ignorance, in digital cinema terms 2K refers to a horizontal resolution of around 2000 pixels, because of the variability of the projected format (1.85, 2.35 etc) it makes more sense to refer to the horizontal resolution rather than the vertical one.

Re:TFA is crap, 2M not 2K (1)

elvum (9344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826219)

"2k" is the industry term for an image with 2048 horizontal pixels (and 1080 vertical). It's comparable to the use of the number of vertical pixels to denote the resolution of an HDTV system (eg 1080p)

Find out more about Cinema 3D here. (1)

jamiegau (1274604) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826061)

For those who would like to know more about Cinema 3D systems, check out www.cinetechgeek.com or lookup cinetechgeek on youtube. There are a few video demonstrating the technology. James

there's a dimension missing... (1)

pr100 (653298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826075)

3d images at 2,048x1,080 pixels. So... what about the third dimension?

Re:there's a dimension missing... (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26826865)

2048x1080x2 See argument here [slashdot.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>