Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Well vast majority of cinemas most certainly are not resolving close to even COD4 level detail. Could just be a crappy projector or i just have bad luck going to cinemas all around London. Or it could just be you have no idea what you are talking and spew fourth rubbish all the time. Vue, Cineworld and ODEON all invest in the latest equipment. Seriously, check your eyesight. Close to CoD4 levels? You must be having a joke. I can't believe anyone can be that idiotic or stubborn. That's a lie. I can easily believe it.
Cookyman Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Link Hold on before you run out to buy a new TV! You may have seen the report on Engadget stating that, according to a Sony rep, all PS3 games will run in 3-D with a software update next year. We contacted Sony ourselves to learn more about what sounded like a major megaton to let slip at a trade show. Sony told us that the company is "conducting a technological investigation" of whether it's even possible to do that. As for specifics: "there is no plan for the market launch of this at this time." If you're dying to look at a 3-D game right now, Engadget also captured a video of Wipeout HD being played in 3-D, which you can see above. For some reason, the 3-D effect doesn't come through when viewed in an embedded video recording -- even with the glasses in front of the lens. Sony really needs to work on that. Move along - no megaton here.
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 I can see clearly though. Can you differentiate between resolutions yourself? Actually, to a degree, yes I can. Cinemas don't all have the same equipment but the minimum standard is a much much higher resolution than you keep bleating on about.
S.C.G Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Tbf it's all pretty redundant, cinemas use whatever high-end equipment that they have, if you go to a cinema and pay for a ticket then you're accepting that the picture quality is good enough to pay for and it is; plus when most people go to the cinema they won't be complaining about the picture quality, they will be watching the film and enjoying the atmosphere. As for value for money, if you allready have a Blu-Ray player at home then of course waiting for the film to come out on disc is better value, you don't get a cinema-sized screen to watch it on but arguably you don't need it if it's just you watching it. Arguing over things that really don't matter when you're viewing it on a cinema screen is trivial, it's not gonna look the same as it would on your HDTV at home, you probably get a better picture overall on a decent HDTV but it's not as big so it's merely a trade-off... Some people prefer to go to the cinema and find the picture quality acceptable, personally I don't... but that's because I live in Cornwall where a lot of the cinema's are still using old projectors, afaik there are only one or two that use new projectors so if you live anywhere where they are standard atm then consider yourself lucky, go and see w/e films you want to see and stop complaining. I'll only go to the cinema if I'm absolutely desperate to see a new film, which doesn't happen often at all; I dislike our local cinema because the screen has faults in it - absolutely unacceptable Imo - and it's usually full of idiots who don't know how to stfu... so I'll stick to dvd's for now and the odd blu-ray thanks, at least I know what kind of quality to expect when watching films at home.
Cube Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 I can't tell a lot of difference between Sky and Sky HD without flicking from one to the other, but I can easily tell that the Scala is super high quality. I'd be amazingly surprised if London doesn't have a ton of screens as good as Prestatyn's.
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Some people prefer to go to the cinema and find the picture quality acceptable, personally I don't... but that's because I live in Cornwall where a lot of the cinema's are still using old projectors, afaik there are only one or two that use new projectors so if you live anywhere where they are standard atm then consider yourself lucky, go and see w/e films you want to see and stop complaining. I suspect the trade off is that cinema tickets can cost £13/15 around central London.
S.C.G Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 I suspect the trade off is that cinema tickets can cost £13/15 around central London. Shit seriously? I didn't realise it had got that bad :/ I mean that's almost the price of what a film will cost when it comes out on Blu-Ray... In Cornwall ticket prices are about £6 - £9 I guess but like I say some cinemas down here are - afaik - still using crap projectors so it really isn't worthwhile for me going to see anything very often. At least in central London they will have the newest equipment but even so... £13 -£15 per ticket? that is a lot just to see one film once.
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 That's the extreme. Peak time Leicester Square (which have the best screens) it varies around the place though. I can get a student ticket for £6.50 two streets over from the Square. It's only really that bad around central but certain cinemas do have amazing screens. The Empire is my favourite. Good seating and the image is crystal. I saw Apocalytpo there and it looked better than Blu Ray on a 40". I was blown away.
dwarf Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Yeah well the only cinema I go to is the Empire one, as I said I was pleasantly surprised with how good it looked when showing Angel and Demons.
Fresh Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Well the porn industry is said to be the thing that wins format wars, could the same be said for 3D. Are we ready for 3D porn? Would it lead to a new standard of 3D?
Emasher Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 No way I'm buying a new TV for a good few years, so I don't really care about this at the moment. It would be something interesting to try at one point though.
Ashley Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Well the porn industry is said to be the thing that wins format wars, could the same be said for 3D. Are we ready for 3D porn? Would it lead to a new standard of 3D? 3D porn exists.
Fresh Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 3D porn exists. Ashley, your blowing my mind.
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 The Empire is no doubt great but its hardly indicative of the average cinema. Even then most of the screens are tiny there (stick to screen 1). The vast majority of cinemas and especially screens are still SD. Apocalypto is very good PQ wise. I'm just going to point out the rubbish you've been saying. Varies but in London there are virtually no HD screens. Even the best cinemas in the UK arent that great compared to what other countries get. And no, screens 1, 4 and 5 have advance digital projectors at The Empire Leicester Square alone. If you want to see how much crap you're talking just read this article from 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4297865.stm UK pioneers digital film network The world's first digital cinema network will be established in the UK over the next 18 months. Most cinemas currently have mechanical projectors but the new network will see up to 250 screens in up to 150 cinemas fitted with digital projectors capable of displaying high definition images. The new network will double the world's total of digital screens. So not only do you know nothing about the implementation of cinema technology in the UK but you talk crap about the cost. At least we know where money gets wasted in these times of thrift... "It can cost up to £1,500 to make a copy of a print for specialist films. "In the digital world you can make prints for considerably less than that. The sheer cost of traditional prints means that some cinemas need to show them twice a day in order to recoup costs. Choze, stfu. Look back. I've sourced everything I said. You're obviously making things up.
Ashley Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Did you not see the part where it said that the increase in the UK digital screens will double the worlds, ergo 250 existed before then add in the 250 and as such the UK has half of the world's digital screens, more than America (as presumably some of the pre-existing ones are also in other markets such as Asia).
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Well done for being a dumb idiot and proving my point. Most UK screens show poor quality. 250 screens out of over 4000. Nicely done. Not only that but if 1 aspect of the delivery falls behind par the end result is under par. Also digital does not mean quality. Thanks for the tautology you moron. Lets see... 1a) You thought there were different qualities of IMAX. Infact IMAX is a file format. A standard. I'll explain this to you again, that means all IMAX images are the same. 1b) "its probably a dumbed down Odeon Imax with small screen" Seriously, you said this in a response to my post where I stated IMAX was a standard. It CANNOT be dubbed down. Even if it was displayed on a smaller screen it would look crisper since simple logistic dictate that the actual lines of resolution (their number staying the same because it is a 'STANDARD') would be finer. 2) You said, and I quote "Varies but in London there are virtually no HD screens" and "Even the best cinemas in the UK arent that great compared to what other countries get". As I pointed, as the BBC pointed out (4 years ago, ill add), as Ashley pointed out, the upgrade of the UK cinema network "doubled the world's total of digital screens." Again, this mean you were wrong. Are you still with me? Any words you didn't understand? 3) You said, "At least we know where money gets wasted in these times of thrift..." (remember these are all points that you are making). Digital copies of films work out a lot cheap than ones distributed on film. They also last longer and the quality doesn't deminish after time. 4a) "Hardly any are 720p HD let alone use good projectors and 1080p." lol, WTF? You're applying terms like 720p and 1080p to cinema. Those terms relate to monitors and television sets. What the hell are you on about? Like I said, film alone can produce over 2000 lines of resolution and have done for the past few decades. 4b) HD does not apply to cinemas. It is a marketing tool for getting pewople to upgrade their television sets to ones with much higher resolution. 5) Now this is funny because I've already gone over this. "Most UK screens show poor quality." So you are saying that 35mm film is poor quality? Laughable. The resolution on 35mm film already easily outstrips that of television HD. 6) Since I'm pointing out all that I'll go through a some more of your posts. "Blu Ray 3D will completely destroy cinemas here. Utterly destroy them. When Avatar comes out i dont know where to watch because they will probably use the crappy toy glasses that are used in theme parks and current 3D movies." So you are expecting individual families will shell out thousands of pounds for new TV sets before the cinema network in this country? Even though they are backed by movie studio powerhouses who will begin a full on push with Avatar this year and Tron next year. Both being massive Xmas films? 7) "Nothing like the tech Sony and Panasonic are going for." It's very similar to the tech both Panasonic and Sony are going for. Both will use glasses. How you don't know this is...well it's just funny...again. Neither of these companies are focusing on autostereoscopic 3D. 8) Why would people go to the cinema and watch 'poor quality' films? Why not just wait for the DVD. None of your arguments make any sense. So what evidence have you provided? Anecdotal. How convenient for you. You know, it's actually more enjoyable having a discussion with Zechs than you. He knows he can't deny when someone is right, but you? You're bizarre. Even in the face of complete logic you'll talk and talk and all that'll have come out of your mouth is utter crap. I can let you have your balls back and you can admit you don't know what you are on about or I can continue to point out everything that you say is garbage and everyone can keep laughing at you. Your choice.
Ashley Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 (edited) You never tried, even slightly to address my concerns. Yes Film is much higher quality than anything but none of the usual cinema setups can take advantage of that. Hence the average cinema puts out the equivalent of SD quality. Many people claim their DVD's look nicer than cinema. I agree with that notion. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. 3D will come but gradually. 1) Umm...he is doing exactly that by quoting what you have said then addressing it. What do you want, interpretative dance? 2) So you're saying that film is of high quality, the film that has been used for decades, but cinemas have never had the equipment to properly display this standard? ... Edited September 5, 2009 by Ashley
Ramar Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Choze quick use this! Daft serving up the wall of text pwning right there.
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Too much text. In your efforts to disprove me you've shown you cant even read properly. I dont disagree with your points. You never tried, even slightly to address my concerns. Yes Film is much higher quality than anything but none of the usual cinema setups can take advantage of that. Hence the average cinema puts out the equivalent of SD quality. Many people claim their DVD's look nicer than cinema. I agree with that notion. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. 3D will come but gradually. It took no effort for me to write that. I bolded everything you said to make it clear for you so it seems it's you who cannot read (even your own writing). Ashley isn't too crazy with his interpretive dance idea although a pop-up book would probably be more your level. It would probably be best if I rounded off the edges as well, we wouldn't want you poking your eye out, now would we... You can have this little prize for your effort, Well done. Thanks for coming.
flameboy Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 yeah looks like this got crazy...will start from the beginning then give my take on the 3D revolution....
Daft Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 3D will gain traction this generation (we aren't even half way into the PS3's life cycle) but we will have to wait for the next generation before we see any real innovation, I suspect. I am an idiot. :awesome: Fixed.
dwarf Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Great way to ruin my thread lads. Oh c'mon they made this thread. This was little more than a news announcement, but then it served as a very funny reminder of how Choze is incompetent at arguing, incapable of accepting his errors and also his ability in showing the temerity to believe it in himself that he won the debate because he didn't resort to insults first, despite having jack shit for a case in favour of his own arguments. Look Choze, Daft had no other choice after your failures but to just state the obvious. I thought you had some brains but Jesus knows you don't. Utterly incredible, you manage to top yourself every time.
MATtheHAT Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 I vote to sticky this thread, just for pure epicness and general Choze pWness.
McPhee Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Yes Film is much higher quality than anything but none of the usual cinema setups can take advantage of that. Hence the average cinema puts out the equivalent of SD quality. Many people claim their DVD's look nicer than cinema. I agree with that notion. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. Most people claim that DVDs upscaled on a £40 ASDA DVD player look as good as Blu-Rays too, it doesn't mean they're right. The bulbs used in cinema projectors cost more than all of the TV kit in the average UK living room. You claim that this kit is able to produce a better picture from the sub-par quality of a DVD than a cinema projector drawing from raw 35mm film and projecting on to a high-gain 50' cinema screen? A good £10k worth of kit vs <£1k. How exactly do you measure picture quality? Because you seem to spend an aweful lot of time harping on about resolution rather than the things that matter (like colour reproduction). This point is further emphasised by your stupidity in insisting that DVDs look nicer than a film shown at a cinema. DVDs are notoriously bad in terms of colour accuracy, they can't even manage a half convincing black for a start (try watching something like The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray and then on DVD, or an episode of 24 and you'll see what i mean).
Recommended Posts