Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Technology

UK Cinemas Get 3D Projection Rollout 151

Posted by samzenpus
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Cinemas Get 3D Projection Rollout

Comments Filter:
  • Cue motion sickness and minimum wage cleaning staff quitting their jobs in 3.... 2....
  • Too close (Score:5, Funny)

    by JohnFluxx (413620) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:06AM (#26825017)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, 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?

      • by JohnFluxx (413620)

        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

        • by Atreide (16473)

          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

          • by JohnFluxx (413620)

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

  • 3d? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sobrique (543255) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:14AM (#26825057) Homepage
    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...
  • Cool. Have we to use the same ugly bichromatic len glasses or they improve them too? Default glasses are not very confortable. Do you?
    • by d0mokun (1227718) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:22AM (#26825107) Homepage
      Yoda? Is that you?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by MadnessASAP (1052274)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by French31 (1311051)
      Soon, you won't have to wear glasses for 3D films. Check this out. [guardian.co.uk]
      • by pmarini (989354)
        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
        • 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.
          • As if you had someone to watch TV with...

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

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by joss (1346)

              > 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

    • 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 :(

  • Reality: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ledow (319597) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:18AM (#26825081) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AndyboyH (837116)

      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 putt

    • by symes (835608)

      "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?

      • by Cowmonaut (989226)
        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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
        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
        • 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).

          • 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 twic
        • by internewt (640704)

          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.

          Ac

      • by Nursie (632944)

        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.

    • Re:Reality: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by N1AK (864906) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:44AM (#26825273) Homepage

      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.

      • by dltaylor (7510)

        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.

      • by 91degrees (207121)
        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.
      • 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.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        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

    • by tibman (623933)

      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 :)

    • 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

    • staff are similarly dirty, smelly and sticky.

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

    • 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.
    • by papabob (1211684)
      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!
    • 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 w
    • by Sentry21 (8183)

      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

    • 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 f

    • by dwarg (1352059)

      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.

    • 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 a

  • 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.

    • by Racemaniac (1099281) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:40AM (#26825249)

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

      • by AndyboyH (837116)

        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.

        • 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.

  • 2048x1080? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:22AM (#26825113)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by camcorder (759720)
      No, because it's not pysical 3D just an illusion.
    • Re:2048x1080? (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheThiefMaster (992038) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:42AM (#26825267)

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

      So it should be 2048x1080 x2.

  • by Air-conditioned cowh (552882) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:25AM (#26825127)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nmg196 (184961)

      > 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

      • 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 wit

        • by nmg196 (184961)

          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.

      • 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.

      • by JohnFluxx (413620)

        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.

        • by nmg196 (184961)

          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".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by elvum (9344) *

        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.

  • Another dimension? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by houghi (78078) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:25AM (#26825133)

    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)

  • 'Fully' roll out? (Score:5, Informative)

    by BarryNorton (778694) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @06:27AM (#26825151)
    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 [gizmodo.com].
    • 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).
      • by elvum (9344) *

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

  • Are we sure they aren't 3D *cameras*?
  • What 3D "holywood" movies are there (except for the occasional 3D animation)?

  • 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 mor

    • 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.

      • by 91degrees (207121)
        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.
      • 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 u

        • by EdZ (755139)
          "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 (standar

    • 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.

    • by Spatial (1235392)
      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.

    • Where do they get their "twice the resolution?"

      One image for each eye.

  • 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 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?

  • 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.
    • 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.
  • by Antony T Curtis (89990) on Thursday February 12, 2009 @07:49AM (#26825673) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by TheSync (5291)

      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!

  • From TFA:

    actual 3D, with 3D glasses

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

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley

Working...