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."

27 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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... ;-)

  3. 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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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/
    5. 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/
  4. 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

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

    Yoda? Is that you?

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. '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.

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

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

  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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/