Is digital cinema projection a bit rubbish?

S

Scott C

New member
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?
 
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?
 
Sometimes I think they do these things for the sake of being modern - 'digital' must somehow equal 'better'. I would be disappointed if all cinema goes this way - I hear some cinemas are becoming 'digital only'. I guess that means all studios must be offering film and digital copies now or even only digital copies. :-(

I'm sure it works with IMAX etc but it neeRAB 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 CRAB - 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.
 
I saw Shutter Island at Vue Westfield which claims to be Europe's largest digital-only cinema and there was definitely something not quite right with the picture (and no, it wasn't Leo DiCaprio's beard). It would be interesting - if time-consuming - to watch a film in a digital cinema and then cross the road and watch it again in a non-digital screen to see which looks better.
 
Our local cinema is All Digital 3D and I have to say the picture quality is stunning compared to the old way. Are these movies now being distributed via hard drive or something and played that way through the projector? I never understood what digital cinema meant but I presume that's what it is!

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 ;)
 
I've seen several films in Digital projection and the image was very sharp .

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/speeRAB for effect , however this may have caused 'translation' problems when being converted to a digital image .

if that makes sense .
 
I've only seen a digital performances at the Empire and Odeon in Leicester Square, the picture has always been pin-sharp with no pixelization as far as I can see.
 
I've only seen two films in digital - Finding Nemo and Signs. Both of them at the Odeon Leicester Square. The picture quality was excellent on both. Are digital projected films stored on DVD like media?
 
Not all projectors are the same, the cheaper or older ones have lower resolution. Digital isn't inherently bad, but older or cheap digital, thats not good, I've seen the pixel grid myself, unpleasant indeed. I"d ask for a refund if I saw that.
 
Back
Top