Slashdot Mirror
Poor Picture At Your Local Cinema?
The Hub writes "Have you ever noticed that the picture in your local movie theater is too dark or grainy? The Boston Globe does some good ol' fashioned investigative reporting to find the culprit. Apparently, the cause is linked to some 3D digital projectors requiring a technically challenging lens switch for 2D movies that sometimes doesn't happen."
This is actually due to the fact that Sony digital projectors are so locked down with DRM that even changing the lens requires all kinds of password checks (which can potentially lock the camera down if not done correctly).
Sadly, this is one of the problems that digital projectors were *supposed* to fix. For years, it was a infamous practice for theater managers to extend projector bulb life by reducing the power of the lamp. Since most people don't notice (having no idea how the movie is *supposed* to look), they could get away with it. Roger Ebert in particular complained about this practice for decades (even organizing protests at certain theaters engaging in the practice). When digital projection came along, one of the selling points was that it produced a much more consistent image (and managers couldn't futz with it--reducing bulb strength, etc.).
Now, thanks to our good friends at Sony, it would seem like we're right back where we started from (maybe even worse, since this produces an even darker image than one of the celluloid projectors at half power).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Investigative journalism would have got more out of Sony and the theater owners before going to press.
Did you even RTFA? Here's the relevant paragraph:
They contacted people. The right people, in the case of AMC. All these people uniformly shut the hell up, because that's what corporate executives are trained to do when there's a controversy that would cost them money to fix (yes, changing the lenses would be a big expense for these theaters.) They've been given their chance, and now that they've established there's a stone wall of silence, it's time for the reporter to let the story out. If it pisses off the fickle moviegoing audiences even more, well, the theater owners had their chance to speak.
Maybe this story will get them to set a policy to change lenses. Or maybe it won't. When you consider the dreck that so many of these movies are, counting on the taste of the moviegoing public to concern themselves over projection quality seems unrealistically optimistic.
John
The person who answers the phone at N places said "I can't let you speak to him" and one guy said "I don't know" in a fancy way.
I did more "investigation" by opening /. this morning.
The things I read between the lines of TFA were:
1. this story is biased towards the rants of the projectionists (rightly or wrongly)
2. the moviegoer can't tell without comparing, even if the difference is huge, and almost no moviegoer has a reason to try comparing; everyone forgets how we put up with 4:3 and NTSC for 60 years without feeling shortchanged; our issues with quality are generally with the idea that someone somewhere is getting better quality for the same price, not that we have a clue what is or isn't appropriate de facto quality
3. the reporter didn't hound anyone or camp out in the lobby or sneak in anywhere or pore through secret documents to dig up the dirt, he just made a few phone calls, talked face-to-face with those who likely brought him the story in the first place, and eye-witnessed what anyone on the street could have seen just by looking.
4. the corporate types who actually do have insight into the problem don't seem to have any insight into the problem, hence maybe that one guy is just more out of the loop than he thinks. it happens. half of my chain of command wouldn't know what my main job function is, and i'm not an invisible presence around here.
5. the problem is a snafu in the specification of an item that was demanded heavily (did you see how much money Avatar made? as shitty a movie as it was? all attributed to 3D) and rushed to production. fixing the problem in the field is exacerbated by another problem that has intense corporate policy interest (piracy of digital content); the problem isn't affecting bottom line yet, so it won't get fixed soon.
why passwords and such are needed to change the lens and how was it set up like that?
The 3-D lens is mounted inside the case. The password is needed to allow you to open the case, because once the case is open you could get at the digital signal and steal it.
Why they coupled these is a small mystery, the most likely solution to which is that Sony's engineers did what was easy to implement instead of what was easy to use.