This projection technology is crap, let’s slash the seats
I just watched the Simpson’s Movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Now I know what ‘spiderpig’ means!
What I didn’t enjoy was the brand-new all-digital projection system that my local cinema recently installed, and which they are proudly touting.
It’s crap.
Digital cinema offers improved picture quality on screen that is maintained over the entire life span of the film because a digital image will never degrade.
Or so they claim. Alas, this isn’t true. It offers worse picture quality, the best that can be said about which is that it is, at least, consistently and predictably poor.
I’ll be more specific. There are two really noticeable problems with the digital projectors that they’ve installed at Odeon Surrey Quays. The first is the discernible mesh between discrete pixels, an example of which you can see by looking closely at the screen in front of you (if it’s a TFT).
The second problem is that the resolution isn’t high enough—it’s not even remotely adequate. Granted, there are more pixels than the average computer monitor, but even a couple of thousand pixels doesn’t go very far when the screen is five metres or so high. Even with anti-aliasing, the step as an angled line crossed a pixel boundary was glaringly obvious. Whilst film grain is also sometimes perceptible, the fact that it’s randomly distributed makes it a lot more tolerable and a lot less distracting.
I’m sure that the technology will improve, but, for now, it’s very immature. There are many potential advantages to digital technology, but it’s all for naught if the actual picture quality is rubbish. I fear that we are going to end up with a lot of digital installations that look much worse than the old projectors they replace.
2007-08-19 22:50 UTC. Comments: 1.
Dan Richardson
Wrote at 2007-09-19 00:06 UTC using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP:
Paul,You are absolutely dead-on with this. For some reason, we, the collective we, are enamored by the word “digital” and equate it to mean “better”. How many times do we have to go through this to finally understand that it really means “cheaper… to make”?
Dynamic range in Records vs. CD’s,
Dynamic range in Slide film vs. Even a great DSLR
Landline phone quality vs. Cell (VOIP confuses the issue)
Photo lab prints vs. consumer inkjet
You could go on and on…
You win the argument in TV vs. HDTV, only because TV ALWAYS sucked, and HDTV is a clear advantage (though again, with 1080i (worse) winning out over 720p (better).. ugh). Why you blokes in the UK aren’t blind because of 50hz, I’ll never know. 30 fps (interlaced 60hz) is bad enough.
Anyway, it’s Tuesday, and I thought I needed a rant before heading home.
-Dan
United State of Oregon
PS: Thanks for the FFMPEG write up in Ubuntu – it saved me many lost strands of hair!!