Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Cinemas Get 3D Projection Rollout

Posted by samzenpus on from the reach-out-and-touch-someone dept.

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."

151 comments

  1. Back to the Future 3D by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Too close by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Too close by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that's exactly what I'm wondering. They claim a resolution of 2,048x1,080 pixels, but wouldn't real 3d be a resolution of say, 2048x1080x1080 at least?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Too close by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's just like viewing one screen with one eye, and another screen with the other eye. So you could say it's 2048x1080x2

    3. Re:Too close by zeroRenegade · · Score: 1
      Is this a joke? It has to be... well I hope it is.

      I hate when stereoscopic imaging is refereed to as being three dimensional. It is just depth perception, which creates the appearance of three dimensional objects. I also would not call it an illusion, since it is the natural effect of having two eyes.

      If you hold an apple in front of you, you can see more than 180 degrees around the apple. If you close one eye, you can only perceive a solid angle of 180 degrees. This is depth perception. This allows us to perceive the distance to the object. Our minds naturally calculate the distance by the degree of parallax perceived by our eyes.

      Using anachrome glasses is not a viable solution for high end movies due to the reasons cited by other posts. Shutter glasses are a perfect solution, where each eye is shut for the drawing of the viewpoint for the other eye, which happens fast enough that both sockets for the glasses are perceived as being open all the time. The problem with shutter glasses is that they break easily. Our CG department at school had a system, but it was useless since the shutter glasses where broken almost immediately after they spent thousands of dollars for the system. They just kept the system as a relic afterwards. I hope they finally coughed up the money for new glasses.

      The alternate solution for depth perception without any type of glasses linked in a comment below is a viable solution, but only for one viewer, and it is still not true 3D as the post claims it to be.

      Another perfect solution for depth perception is virtual reality glasses, where there is a screen for each eye, but this is only realistic for video gaming, and is not a solution for viewing movies with friends, since we would look retarded and it would restrict communicating with friends while watching the movie (eyes speak just as much as the mouth).

      There is another solution where there are two screens, and one is placed perpendicular to the other, and a transparent screen is placed at a 45 degree angle between the two screens, which reflects the frames drawn on each screen. This is a terrible solution for depth perception, and does not get us any closer to three dimensions.

      The only real three dimensional solution is a volumetric display, but it also has limitations, since it has a limited viewing space, and horizons/backdrops would still have to be two dimensional. I wont even begin to discuss this, as it would require a much longer post, and there are multiple different solutions for this type of display. It will be a long time before we see these in theatre, since you could pay off God with less money than the cost for these systems.

    4. Re:Too close by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      You get a pair of DLP projectors, put polarized filters in front of the projectors, and hand out glasses. Linear polarization works and is cheap, but the effect is lost if you tilt your head. Circular polarization is better. No need for expensive shutter glasses or high speed projectors, and it doesn't screw up the color like anaglyphs.

      You basically just have to double your hardware costs, and add a few thousand for filters and glasses.

    5. Re:Too close by Atreide · · Score: 1

      Well, that's exactly what I'm wondering. They claim a resolution of 2,048x1,080 pixels, but wouldn't real 3d be a resolution of say, 2048x1080x1080 at least?

      Nah, it's just like viewing one screen with one eye, and another screen with the other eye. So you could say it's 2048x1080x2

      which means if there is 540 people in room (with no eye deficiency) then you need 2048x1080x1080

      --
      The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
    6. Re:Too close by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      No, because all 540 people view the same two images. Their view doesn't change depending on where they sit.

  3. 3d? by Sobrique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:3d? by Just+because+I'm+an · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    2. Re:3d? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Article is wrong. 3d anistropic porn has existed since the 70s.

  4. And glasses... by vegaspace · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:And glasses... by d0mokun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yoda? Is that you?

    2. Re:And glasses... by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    3. Re:And glasses... by French31 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Soon, you won't have to wear glasses for 3D films. Check this out.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. --Ben Franklin
    4. Re:And glasses... by pmarini · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    5. Re:And glasses... by mattr99_uk · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:And glasses... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:And glasses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not true 3D unless parallax works.

    8. Re:And glasses... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      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 :(

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    9. Re:And glasses... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      With a polarized light projection system you wouldn't have this problem.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:And glasses... by joss · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Because I fucking *hate* Sex and the city

      Once you get married, I bet you find yourself watching TV less. Part of that may be you have a richer life and other activities to occupy you but mostly its because chick tv sucks big green donkey dick

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    11. Re:And glasses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Danielson, that is why god invited what you call, "2nd TV".

  5. 3D films out of Hollywoord by s1lverl0rd · · Score: 0

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

  6. Reality: by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 :)

    2. Re:Reality: by AndyboyH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Baka Drew
    3. Re:Reality: by symes · · Score: 1

      "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?

    4. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. If you want somewhere that doesn't just show the big budget Hollywood, Brighton has the Duke of York's Picturehouse. 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.

    5. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have friends?

    6. Re:Reality: by N1AK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Reality: by tibman · · Score: 1

      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 :)

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    8. Re:Reality: by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Reality: by virtualsid · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Reality: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Reality: by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Reality: by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.

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

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    13. Re:Reality: by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      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).

    14. Re:Reality: by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    15. Re:Reality: by Nursie · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    17. Re:Reality: by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:Reality: by papabob · · Score: 1

      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!

    19. Re:Reality: by MrPloppy · · Score: 1

      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

    20. Re:Reality: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can OWN a copy of a film

      Incorrect. In capitalist America, the MPAA owns you.

    22. Re:Reality: by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    24. Re:Reality: by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:Reality: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    26. Re:Reality: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    27. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    28. Re:Reality: by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:Reality: by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      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.

    30. Re:Reality: by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    31. Re:Reality: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    32. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    33. Re:Reality: by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you, now that I'm in full-time employment and can afford such luxuries as a decently-sized HDTV, sound system and furniture.

      Back when I was a student though, I had a 14" 4:3 TV, some admittedly quite powerful PC speakers, a cheap DVD player that made a grinding sound when it span the disc (plus a retina-destroying LED on the front that required some blu-tacking over), and some awful student-flat furniture.

      The alternative was the local Vue cinema, with huge comfy seats instead of the fold-down monstrosities most cinemas have, and a student discount to take the edge off the price. And no blu-tack required. Incidentally, I've never seen a £15 cinema ticket, although admittedly I haven't been in a while. The last one I paid for was around £6 without a discount.

    34. Re:Reality: by Inda · · Score: 1

      It's a Belgium beer though. Belgium beer brewed in the UK. And it's no more expensive than any other beer now. It's a real classy summer drink.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    35. Re:Reality: by dwarg · · Score: 1

      Yes, but at the theater I can tell my wife to be quiet and I can enjoy the movie. At home... no such luck.

      And I do truly hope there is a special place in hell for child molesters and people that talk in the theater.

    36. Re:Reality: by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      If you want a really good lager, get something Czech like Budweiser Budvar, if they sell it in the US.

      I love that stuff. They call it "Czechvar" here.

      Lots of us Americans think that our macrobrewed domestics are bad too. However, not all of our beer is swill; there are LOTS of good microbrew domestics available. (Yuengling and Stone's product line specifically come to mind)

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    37. Re:Reality: by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I adore Wychwood, haven't had all of their beers but Hobgoblin is a favorite. I don't recall ever having seen Peeterman Artois in the states but I'll keep an eye out next time I go for specialty beer.

      It's true that ales generally aren't the rage, but I think some of the milder microbrewery ales are gaining popularity (the likes of Sierra Nevada, Dogfish Head, Redhook and smaller regional breweries) Then again as an ex-homebrewer my idea of what's popular is probably a hair skewed.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    38. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) People pay to go sit in your "dirty, smelly, sticky" cinema. In fact, box office this year is up 20-30 percent across the board. So try again.

      2) Everything at a properly run theatre starts exactly on time. It pretty much has to or it runs into the next theatre time.

      3) Quality of film depends on quality of the theatre. Quality of digital does not. Perfect every time because you can't scratch it, bend it, splice it incorrectly, thread it backward, etc.

      4) Hot dogs don't cost more than the ticket. The drinks are mixed according to a brix set the pop company of the theatre's choice, and the staff are hardly ditry, sticky or smelly at a properly run theatre.

      5) Everyone has not been able to do 3D like this and people do care. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware 50 years ago we could broadcast a football game live on a 60 foot screen in 3D. Must've missed that.

      And FYI, I manage a chain so for once, I know what I'm talking about.

    39. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually int the states at least Cinedigm is doing just that. They're doing alternative content, granted mostly for the tikes but they are also doing sports broadcasts in 3D. Not that bad at at that.

    40. Re:Reality: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect most people's "home cinema" today is just a moderately large widescreen TV and surround sound.

      And I suppose you are a person that believe that unless the home theater is personally approved by Roger Ebert (read US$60K+), it isn't a proper home theater either.

      I have some very nice home theater speakers I bought in the early 1990's that are, surprisingly to some, still some very nice 5.0 home theater speakers, and I only paid $2K for them back then (subwoofer purchased later, early 2000's). And no, the speakers are not what makes it a theater. It is the whole package.

    41. Re:Reality: by internewt · · Score: 1

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

      I have seen a piece on a consumer TV programme about this exact practice, and it's utter bollocks. They can put up as many signs as they like saying you can only consume stuff bought on the premises, but there are no laws to back it up. In fact, the law may well be on the side of the visitor, with their cache of supermarket bought sweets.

      The piece I saw involved undercover cameras, and the spotty youth checking tickets got shirty, but when the manager came down the customers were allowed in straight away.

      Actually, I think the exception may be hot food... but if not, I'd be great to take in a kebab meat and chips to watch the latest hollywood bilge-fest. It'd stink no less than the movie! :)

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    42. Re:Reality: by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      "actually, the film doesn't interest me enough to just spend a couple of hours watching a film".

      No, that's a non-sequitor. Enjoying a drink or food at the same time doesn't imply the film isn't interesting.

      Sure, if someone wanted to watch a film naked, then that would be a reason why cinemas have less value. However, laws regarding public nudity are not dictated by the cinema, so that's out of their control. The choice to ban food other than their own expensive offerings is a conscious choice. Moreover, the fact that plenty of people do eat and drink whilst watching a movie (indeed, the cinema makes plenty of money from it) suggests that people do want to do this. I'm not convinced that "pay money to be able to take off your clothes" will be as popular.

      I'm not sure what's so controversial here. If cinemas are whining about falling popularity, maybe they should look at the restrictions they are placing on people - which has nothing to do with "getting your old man out".

      but it doesn't make cinema dead

      I'm not claiming that. If the cinema is doing a roaring trade, good luck to them. I'll remember that next time I hear them whining about piracy.

      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.

      Because obviously, the only two possibilities are a little sweet or bottled water; and smelly food.

      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.

      Where did I claim that? And what on earth has OS got to do with anything?

      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.

      Oh heaven forbid. And I spent 25 hours a day for the last ten years building my own home cinema from scratch. What has that got to do with anything I said? Your entire comment is just a long list of straw man arguments, and doesn't address what I wrote.

    43. Re:Reality: by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Anyway, have you ever seen someone chucked out for discreetly drinking some bottled water or chewing on a sweet?

      I don't think I've seen any one ever chucked out of a cinema. I've been in some with people answering cell phones, with crying children, and talking the whole way through. I'm not entirely convinced they would chuck someone out if they fired up a full size BBQ and smoker and started cooking rotten seafood.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
  7. They're already out in some places. by AndyboyH · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Baka Drew
    1. Re:They're already out in some places. by Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:They're already out in some places. by AndyboyH · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Baka Drew
    3. Re:They're already out in some places. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    4. Re:They're already out in some places. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the creativity factor is at an all time low right now in society.

      There is no magic wand you wave and get a great movie, I don't know what the answer is because than I would be a millionaire and I am sure a lot of people around here wouldn't have the answer either.

      Personally I like listening to guys like Steven Spielberg who know what they are doing and can get the actors to do the right thing, but than again I saw the latest Indian Jones and all my hope went out the door for one of Hollywoods last greatest directors.

  8. 2048x1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:2048x1080? by camcorder · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. Re:2048x1080? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      So it should be 2048x1080 x2.

    3. Re:2048x1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:2048x1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:2048x1080? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      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"

    6. Re:2048x1080? by hobbit · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  9. Next thing is frame rate by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Next thing is frame rate by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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).

    2. Re:Next thing is frame rate by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:Next thing is frame rate by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Next thing is frame rate by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Next thing is frame rate by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Next thing is frame rate by elvum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Next thing is frame rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't IMAX 48fps?

    8. Re:Next thing is frame rate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      But anything you can get on your TV is going to have been compressed. In a digital theater, there is no image compression. No artifacts and no glitches. The major difference between a digital theater and a 35mm is the lack of lint, hair scratches and image wobble in the movie. Usually it's still 24 fps well actually 23.97 fps. 3D is at 59.94 fps or 29.97 fps per eye.

      --
      Why bother
    9. Re:Next thing is frame rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English TV is only 25fps, America uses 30fps.
      Neither of those are all that far from the 24fps in theaters.

    10. Re:Next thing is frame rate by neBelcnU · · Score: 1

      Ok, time to dust off the old (very) SMPTE membership...

      First: frame rate.
      60 FPS was tried, and it is stunning. Saw the demo show at Chuck E. Cheese's corp ofc in Dallas when they thought they might buy into it. You wouldn't believe it: the improvement is like a 120khz 1080p over a 13" NTSC B&W. Literally life-changing.

      Second: film vs. digital.
      It has almost nothing to do with pixels, it has to do with drop-off. When a scene detail drops below the limit of resolution of a digital imager, it simply disappears. A detail big enough is there, one too small is not. Since most things tend to have bits of both (think wrinkles in cloth or skin) the ultra-sharp drop-off of HD is jarring.

      Film, on the other hand, decreases the contrast: tiny details fade to gray. This oddly works better with the human vision system, as we can manage to extract info from the stuff fading in and out. Like how the saccades of your eyes work.

      Finally, let's remember that most HDTVs are barely up to the specs of the best CRTs when it comes to all the juicy stuff. They're just bigger, thinner, and right now, cheaper. (A radiologist's CRT will make you cry.)

      Oh, and it's a "social virtual reality system" so comparing the EXPERIENCE of a movie to your home theater is also meaningless. There's some aspect of the show--sitting with strangers in the dark--that is important.

    11. Re:Next thing is frame rate by evenmoreconfused · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Digital cinema conforms to DCI standards which allows (eve expects) dramatic image compression in the content (check out Digital Cinema Initiative on Wikipedia.

      Very very few players are using uncompressed pipelines from end to end.

      --
      No. Well...maybe. Actually, yes. It really just depends.
    12. Re:Next thing is frame rate by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Since I work for one of the companies that distributes the "DCI compliant prints" to the theaters I can assure you that even though compression is allowed it is not required. I'm quite familiar with the DCI. They are encrypted but according to my math they are not compressed.

      --
      Why bother
    13. Re:Next thing is frame rate by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Um, no. I've done the maths and you'd have to sit only 3-4ft away for that to be the case (relative to sitting half way back in a typical cinema). Who sits 4ft away from a 40 inch screen? I'm 12ft from my TV, and it's only 32".

  10. Another dimension? by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. 'Fully' roll out? by BarryNorton · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:'Fully' roll out? by mattr99_uk · · Score: 1

      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).

    2. Re:'Fully' roll out? by elvum · · Score: 1

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

  12. Given that it's Britain... by stripyd · · Score: 2

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

  13. 3D Movies? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:3D Movies? by Randy+Savage · · Score: 1

      My bloody valentine.

    2. Re:3D Movies? by elvum · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3-D_films

      or

      http://www.reald.com/Content/Pages.aspx?pageID=5

    3. Re:3D Movies? by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      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 Universe] has gone offline.
    4. Re:3D Movies? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      TRON

  14. The article if a "fluff piece" by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by DJGrahamJ · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by Spatial · · Score: 1
      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.

    7. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by Spatial · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    9. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      2048 by 1080 means 2211840 pixels per inch

      I believe I speak for everyone who actually knows what they're talking about when I say, "what the fuck?"

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Where do they get their "twice the resolution?"

      One image for each eye.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:The article if a "fluff piece" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he might have a point

      No, the AC has no point. The AC munged the numbers, added "per inch", and then said that 1.6 is the same as 2.0 (rounded). If you agree that is a good time to round, I have 1.6 oz of gold I would love to sell you (of course, rounded up to 2.0 oz).

      The AC's post was so full of stupid it makes me wonder how it manged to get successfully posted.

  15. I only have one good eye you insensitive clod by OzPeter · · Score: 1
    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)

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  16. Porn? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Porn? by mindwhip · · Score: 1

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

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
  17. The movie theatre sucks by Alarindris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The movie theatre sucks by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen 2001 in a theatre? I'll bet you haven't. It's a totally different experience. People who do not get the movie are the ones that have not seen it in a theatre. When the image is so huge and the sound so good, the emptiness of the frames engulfs you and shows the smallness of man against space. There are some films that are absolutely a totally different experience in the theatre, but those are fewer and farther between nowadays.

  18. Oscar Deutsch Entertains Our Nation by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
    1. Re:Oscar Deutsch Entertains Our Nation by TheSync · · Score: 1

      In this modern era of digital recording and projection, where any visual artifact may simply be a by-product of the video compression algorithm,

      If you can see any artifacts in a DCI-compliant 250 Mbps 24 fps JPEG-2000, please report to Hollywood because your eyes are better than anyone in the digital cinema industry!

  19. TFA is crap, 2M not 2K by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    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.

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

    Yet another article by ignorant.

    1. Re:TFA is crap, 2M not 2K by Jagen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:TFA is crap, 2M not 2K by elvum · · Score: 1

      "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)

    3. Re:TFA is crap, 2M not 2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well no, it's not comparable if one "industry term" uses horizontal pixels and the other uses vertical pixels and the third one uses actual 2D resolution. This terminology is all a big mess. That they all use prefixes without units, and decimal SI prefixes to mean binary (or sometimes decimal) doesn't make it better.

  20. Find out more about Cinema 3D here. by jamiegau · · Score: 1

    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

  21. good call actually by CarpetShark · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:good call actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not with cinema, because the images are from two different projectors(each polarised opposite to the other). the overlay each other, so it's not like the 3D monitors you can buy where alternate horizontals or verticals are polarised alternately, effectively halfing the resolution in one dimension.

    2. Re:good call actually by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Technically they're polarized at 90-degree angles, not opposite to each other. (Or circularly, but I really don't understand the whole thing with right-handed and left-handed circular polarization. Linearly polarized light is about as much as I can comprehend in the polarization issue...)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  22. there's a dimension missing... by pr100 · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:there's a dimension missing... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      2048x1080x2 See argument here

    2. Re:there's a dimension missing... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'm still disappointed. "Real 3-D" to me doesn't mean two images with opposite polarization (which means I have to put on my non-polarized glasses to see it). "Real 3-D" to me should be at least 2048x1080x1080- and allow me to choose to sit in the theater @ 2048x1080x730, or any other row away from the screen....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:there's a dimension missing... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      A one-eyed person can see no more depth than is encoded in a standard 2d image. (Ok by moving the head side-to-side etc they can infer more, but thats based on motion)

      If you have only 2 eyes, then presenting each eye with a single image is sufficient for "full 3d" and offers the same, if not better, depth detail than a solid "image block" that could alter 1080 transparent layers of pixels.

      Now if you had 3 eyes, clearly a 3rd channel would be needed to achieve the same affect

    4. Re:there's a dimension missing... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      (Ok by moving the head side-to-side etc they can infer more, but thats based on motion)

      Only if they're looking at real 3D. A simulated 3D image wouldn't change, because the picture presented to that eye is a static 2D image. It only looks 3D when the 2nd picture (which can only be seen by the other eye) is added for perspective.

      Now if you had 3 eyes, clearly a 3rd channel would be needed to achieve the same affect

      Having three eyes would not be in any way beneficial since only two eyes are required to see 3D. (Oh, and a bit of pedantry: you meant effect.)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:there's a dimension missing... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Real 3-D" to me should be at least 2048x1080x1080- and allow me to choose to sit in the theater @ 2048x1080x730, or
      any other row away from the screen....

      That technology's been around for thousands of years. It's called a 'play'. :P

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:there's a dimension missing... by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      The first point, that is indeed what I meant; when looking at real 3d.

      The second point; indeed, I am duly ashamed. And while I appreciate that a 3rd eye probably wouldn't enhance depth perception, there are creatures out there with more than 2 eyes... and the 3d cinema setup that such a physiology would require to seem "convincing" would indeed be interesting.

    7. Re:there's a dimension missing... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      there are creatures out there with more than 2 eyes...

      Insects have compound eyes, but those are better for detecting motion and blotches of colour than they are good for seeing in 3D. Spiders have multiple eyes, but they apparently see most with their two largest eyes and we don't really understand the function of the extra eyes if I'm reading the wiki correctly.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  23. Where's the 2160p??? by redstar427 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
  24. 3D makes a difference by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. umm.. by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  26. Re:The article doesn't say which kind of 3D by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    If normal digital projection is 4,096 x 2,160 pixels and this projects at 2,048 x 1,080, I would guess this is a typical anaglyph method using half the pixels for each eye. In other words, normal digital projection.

    It could be that they are using two different projectors using polarized light, and that this system uses lower resolution to lower costs. But I would expect a polarized solution to simply use two standard projectors at 4K. Of course the reporter apparently doesn't care which method is being used. It could very well be something gimmicky a crappy like Intel's Intru3D used for the superbowl, or similar technologies which use two colored lenses but try very hard to say "but we're not anaglyph".

    BTW my TV is not properly color-adjusted, so the 3D super bowl stuff actually looked like hell to me. I assume a cinema would bother to fix this for a 2-hour feature running continuously, whereas I don't give a crap for a 15 minute commercial.

    http://scoop.intel.com/2009/02/did-you-catch-the-3d-super-bowl-commercials.php

    There's another one that uses yellow and some other color, might be an offshoot of Intel but using a slightly different second color for the other eye.

  27. so you too above work for the dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ./

  28. ACTUAL? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    actual 3D, with 3D glasses

    Somebody needs to tell them that for actual 3D, you don't need 3D glasses.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  29. What a lot of nonsense. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Lets get food out of the way: don't like it, don't buy it. That simple really.

    As for the personnel I can't smell them, I don't get that close to people across the counter mate. As for checking if they are sticky, lets just no go there ...

    Although I agree with you about the advertisement and bullshit bigbroterish nonsense, you can arrive just before the movie starts. If the cinemas are as empty as you claim you will have no problem finding a seat (grin).

    Finally your home cinema does not have the definition and sound quality of the big screen (yet), so your protestations on quality alone are pretty hollow...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  30. HD cinema is not HDTV by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is vastly superior ...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  31. Bad Math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone noticed that 2,048x1,080 pixels is actually 2M pixels, rather than 2k??

  32. Re:The article doesn't say which kind of 3D by EdZ · · Score: 1
    "typical anaglyph method using half the pixels for each eye."

    What the hell are you on about? Analglyph uses the standard 'flat' resolution along with colour-shifting and filtered lenses. Individual pixels are not 'right' or 'left', but both at the same time. You're thinking of polarized direct displays, which use half the pixels polarised one way and half the other (usually in alternating rows or columns). What is being used here is polarised projection, where two images are projected at the same (standard 'flat') resolution, one image polarised one way and the other at 90degrees (or in the opposite direction if using circular polarisation).

    The 'twice the resolution' line probably comes from using two projectors overlaid. It's a pretty silly way to put it though (the visual fidelity would be barely increased).

  33. India by nikanth · · Score: 1

    India has to wait :(