Journal memfree's Journal: newer != better 3
My local theater (Regal CineMedia's child Regal Cinemas -- and their bought-out child United Artist Theaters) replaced their pre-show projector slides with Christie Digital Projectors, and the drop in quality is dramatic. Sure, they can now the can animate, but it is jumpy and pixilated. It seemed the frames per second (ok, they aren't frames, but the lingo is good for comparison) is reduced from film -- I counted (yes! slow enough to COUNT) about 10 fps, so I'm guessing that it was really 12 fps. Worse, the 'pixels' were about the size of my pinkie fingernail. I went up to the screen to measure and since fingernails vary in size, lets say the pixels are about the size of the line spacing for college-rule paper -- only there are bigger gaps between the squares than in the inked blue lines of college rule. This means that any time the image isn't mostly black (white being the worst) it looks like a grid was imposed upon the screen. Small text is illegible. I was dumfounded by how bad it looked.
Next, I was appalled to see an ad for HDTV on this piece of crap projection. Not only was there the obtrusive grid and slow fps, but the HDTV ad had additional jumpiness -- showing car racing at some relatively set speed then skipping forward for a brief moment staggering at that point, then reverting to 'normal', then jumping forward again. Constantly repeating the time discrepancy. I couldn't believe they'd introduced what *should* be a great innovation such that it looked WORSE than what we've had for decades.
In disgust, I made a brief, half hearted attempt to question the staff, but the best I could find was an assistant manager (read "guy with no knowledge nor authority"). He gave me the 'it's great!' spiel, but I still voiced my complaints. Since I know that won't go anywhere, I also filled out a complaint at their online comment card. I don't think that will do any good, either, but I can't let it go. The wastefulness of deploying such BAD technology grates against me like nails on chalk boards.
Going digital too early... (Score:2)
...seems to be a common mistake of late.
Exhibit One: CBS hypes the EyeVision camera system at the Super Bowl a couple years ago. It's essentially an array of DV cameras arrayed around the stadium with a computer controlled focus-system (think something like the Matrix). Totally useless, as the resolution just isn't there.
Exhibit Two: George Lucas goes digital to film AOTC. The quality sucks, at least when viewed on an analog projector.
In a few years, these issues will be solved, thanks to Moore's Law, but poor early implementations are in danger of killing the innovations.
thank you! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that the bugs should be resolved soon (actually, the high-end stuff is already supposed to be fantastic). My concern is that the industry will adopt these early attempts at digital as their standard (i.e., the cheap stuff), and the consumers will have no choice but to put up with it or stop watching.
While watching the digital ads, I decided that a major advantage of film over low-quality digital is the randomness of film grain. Since the film grain will never be in the same position, 24 frames/second give a blurred image the eye can more readily accept compared to seeing the SAME ladder-effect of big, constant pixel locations trying to display all edges that aren't perfectly horizontal/vertical. I end up focusing on the flaws because they STAY there.
The old slide projection was so fine grained that it wasn't intrusive (to my eyes).
Just another symptom of the kleptocracy (Score:1)
A large part of how Windoze got such market share in the server market (though Novell certainly did their share of screwups) is that it was just another example of the classic phememenon of infrastructure getting trashed by short-term owners. If you're just planning to cash out your stock in a year or three anyway who cares how many crashes there'll be? Who cares what happens to long-term viability? By the time that sort of thing hits the bottom line the people in charge will be long gone.
If you own a movie chain and know that having The Wall Street Journal cover your "leading edge" move to digital technology will up your stock, what does it matter that it sucks since after all, A.) you've bought all the theatres around so the customers just have to put up with it and B.) you'll be out of the game by the time the budget allocation comes around in a few years to have to buy a whole new system while the first one is just beginnning to be amortized?
And don't forget another crucial variable here. Command and control. Slides require human staff on-site and local decision-making. Digital projectors can be plugged into a phoneline and driven from headquarters, which can now micromanage even more and turn your assistant manager into even more of a wage slave/interchangable part.
Much though those of us in the tech world might like it otherwise, a major reason, perhaps the biggest, that corporations go digital is that each such step turns more skilled jobs into McDonald's-level high-turnover, low salary positions.
The next time you see coverage of the Time-Warner/AOL fiasco, think of that projection system approach applied to a whole multibillion dollar company and half of its competitors. Since that's, in fact, about where things stand. And that is what provided the vast sums of money that get scum like the Bushes elected.
Taking my stand in the war to create smart people,
Rustin