Options
Is digital cinema projection a bit rubbish?
I went to see 'A Single Man' at the Odeon Covent Garden the other week, and they were making a big deal about how it was being digitally projected and how this was 'the future of cinema'.
To be honest I was quite disappointed with the picture quality; it was like looking at the scenes as intricate mosaics - visible pixellation everywhere and all the time.
True it didn't have the dust/dirt of a film projection but somehow I find that a lot less distracting than this mess of tiny squares that they're calling 'the future of cinema'. I'm used to the black crackles - it's part of what makes cinema unique.
Obviously i understand the logic behind transferring old prints to digital before they degrade, but surely a newish film print deserves to be shown in its infinite analogue glory?
I know this wasn't an IMAX cinema/film so maybe with increased resolution I wouldn't notice the pixels, but this rather raises the questions why they have bothered to install sub-standard digital projection in this kind of cinema in the first place, as it obviously isn't up to it.
I have been gradually won round to 'softer' digital broadcast TV because I see the benefit in terms of overall signal quality, and you're usually dealing with lines on a display anyway. But surely cinema is all about the best possible picture, and the projection of an infinitesimally thin beam of light is always going to beat any upper limit of megapixels, isn't it?
Do people agree/disagree?
NB. I don't know whether this particular film was shot on film or digital, perhaps that makes a difference?
To be honest I was quite disappointed with the picture quality; it was like looking at the scenes as intricate mosaics - visible pixellation everywhere and all the time.
True it didn't have the dust/dirt of a film projection but somehow I find that a lot less distracting than this mess of tiny squares that they're calling 'the future of cinema'. I'm used to the black crackles - it's part of what makes cinema unique.
Obviously i understand the logic behind transferring old prints to digital before they degrade, but surely a newish film print deserves to be shown in its infinite analogue glory?
I know this wasn't an IMAX cinema/film so maybe with increased resolution I wouldn't notice the pixels, but this rather raises the questions why they have bothered to install sub-standard digital projection in this kind of cinema in the first place, as it obviously isn't up to it.
I have been gradually won round to 'softer' digital broadcast TV because I see the benefit in terms of overall signal quality, and you're usually dealing with lines on a display anyway. But surely cinema is all about the best possible picture, and the projection of an infinitesimally thin beam of light is always going to beat any upper limit of megapixels, isn't it?
Do people agree/disagree?
NB. I don't know whether this particular film was shot on film or digital, perhaps that makes a difference?
0
Comments
I sat about three/four rows back, which I usually find is far enough from the screen. The vertical staggering is quite high so it's not very near. I never like sitting too near the front because I want to see the whole screen in my field of vision.
Definitely middle/middle is best - though in this cinema those are occupied by 'premier seats'.
But in this case I think I could have been right back squashed against the wall and I would have still seen the pixels. What's your opinion of digital cinema projection done in this way?
I agree with you but it does improve if you sit further back I find.
I'm sure it works with IMAX etc but it needs to be done properly and at a high enough resolution for even those at the very front. (I've never actually seen anything at the IMAX - I'd probably find problems with that too!)
I guess it's the same as vinyl purist who bemoan CDs - to me I can't tell the difference as much there because my hearing is poor whereas my vision is 20/20. I just don't see any genuine advantage for new releases.
No speckles, 'cigarette burns' hair on the screen or grain. The picture is sumptuous and has made going to see a film more enjoyable than before as the old cinema was bogged down by poor screen and picture quality.
That's interesting considering piracy is supposed to be making the industry lose significant amounts of money... given that good, digital files will become much easier to obtain, I would imagine
That's about it. Specialist digital cinema projectors are installed with high power light sources and away you go.
I saw A Single Man in 35mm , and the film was rather grainy in parts , this was deliberate I'm sure , the director was using different film stocks/speeds for effect , however this may have caused 'translation' problems when being converted to a digital image .
if that makes sense .
You would find it very difficult to pirate cinema release digital media. DVD/Bluray is the source of the pirated stuff on the web.