Cinema stories

Hmm I see. Might have to settle depending on the circumstances.

I wouldn't rush since the 4k and hdr projector stuff is still rather expensive and still being developed with a lot offering just upscale to 4k. Though still cheaper than regular tvs especially with big sizes 80" can run $2,000 to $4,000. A Sony 100" is $60,000. I prefer the projector. It just looks and feels like a real movie theater experience and am quite happy with the 1080p. See pic related for the different projector throws.

Nice made up story OP

4k hdr stuff feels like 1080p did back in like 2011 right now, doable but if you wait like 2 more years you'll save a ton of money. I'd want 4k for my movies anyways bigger deal then games for me.

It WAS a hot september where I'm from

I got autism from reading this

...

You sometimes forget that half the population has sub 100 iqs, going to the cinema during rush hour reminds you of that

The one good thing about 4k is not people who have 4k TV's can get full 1080 3D image using passive glassed instead of the 1/2 resolution because the the 3D image was interlaced. The dlp projectors didn't suffer from that because it used active 3d. Don't really like 4k tvs going by seeing them in the showrooms everything has that soap opera look to it. As for projectors, the 4k would benefit it more since the pixel count would be greater and you won't have to sit so far back where you don't notice the them. I watch a lot of older movies shot on film so for me the only thing that will get improved would be more film grain resolution. What is pissing me off though is a lot of these titles coming out in 4k they aren't offering the 3D versions. They give you the 4K disk, the blu ray disk and the dvd. Like wtf? DVD? Drop that shit and put in the 3D version for Christ sake.

*is now

actually im europoor

Technically actual film has an equivalent resolution to about 4k, so getting 4k conversions of older movies is a near picture perfect recreation of what those movies looked like in theater originally. 1080p is fine for now for me and I don't need a 4k tv. Pc monitor might be nice for editing though.

also on 3d, I think it hasn't been selling well so that is why they are dropping it. I only own 1 3d film I, Frankenstein and I don't even have a 3d tv to watch it on. Are they any good?

The reason that happened is that the resolution was bad on TVs and people didn't like it. Of course, they didn't let the normies know that passive=loss of resolution. So most people thought 3D was bs.

With the 4k oled's it could rebound mass market wise.

hooktube.com/watch?v=-msqNM4f6nY go to 5:40

The idea of viewing two seperate screens on one tv is fucking incredible sounding. And yeah if it looked like a 1080p picture then there's literally no drawback. On the 3d movie side though, the question is if enough 3d movies come out that people really want to see in 3d though. Can't think of any that have come out recently myself, but from a purely tech perspective it does sound really cool.

Sony made a TV for PS3 games with splitscreen back when the 3D craze started. Too bad few games were 3D and splitscreen was dying.

It's cool in concept but it's also another thing to buy and something you have to wear. Also low resolution is an issue. Now if it was a universal function that also worked with 3d then there may be a chance if the tech was reintroduced

why do you need 4 seats?

Well according to a Ridley Scott interview he claims he didn't do Alien Covenant in 3D was because it was a rather dark movie and the 3D would have been wasted on it. Now I haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 (or Covenant for that matter) but they did that one in 3D. I'm going to assume it's not as dark as the original Blade Runner movie. Dark in terms of brightness. I don't think I buy the dark bit Scott was probably just being cheap and lazy.

That's not mine I was just being lazy and didn't want to search around my backups for my images

See… and

I have a couch at the entrance of the entrance way that separates the two rooms with foot rests.

Whatever the case, it's good he did that. 3D doesn't add much at all, seems more like an executive descision more than a creative one. Hate that the glasses make everything so dark, the main reason I hate 3D glasses, especially for dark movies, can't see shit.

One thing I forgot to mention is that Linus messed up @5:51 he says active shutter glasses but he meant the passive polarized glasses.

Yah, it was the first thing Linus brought up in the segment.

...

Sneaking snacks in like that makes one feel like a drug smuggler

...

I remember doing over the summer when I was a teen. Was a bit of a degenerate, so I still remember bringing a gatorade bottle of vodka into Blade and puffing on a hitter during Slackers. Both times being the only one in the theater besides a buddy or two.

Now that sounds like a good time.

friend is still a corporate whore, but at least he's fine politically.

...

...

...

I cringed

3d, 4k, all this movie technology is pointless bullshit, and actually harms the artistic merit of film. instead of getting all excited about new types of fucking screens how about making the movies themselves good again?

Would the Godfather have been a better film if it had been in 3D with CG gunfights and car chases and blue and orange everywhere? No, it would have been a wretched abortion.

Don't buy into tech hype, don't pay to see a movie based on this crap. Go to good movies, if you can find any.

Why would you even confound this 3d? 4k is 4x the resolution of 2k and a clear visual upgrade when done properly. Lots of 4k films only use 2k scaled sfx though, and the 3d DCP standard only supports 2k.
This was basically the appeal of 70mm and IMAX 15/70 in analog film formats over 35mm, which is precisely why 4k and beyond is an upgrade to 2k. The large film cells also had the benefit of allowing more light to reach the screen and a brighter image, most digital projectors are dim by comparison which is why advancements like laser help close the digital to analog gap.

Reminder that whenever you see emphasized brand names, they are paid shills shilling it.

Why?

This post made me watch Blade and what a fucking garbage movie, Underworld and Matrix are better than that piece of shit.

You might have recognized that in relation to Star Wars: The Last Jedi, because fans have been ruthlessly shilling the brand ever since the amazing Star Wars: The Force Awakens came out, but I doubt you'd see that level of dedication for ordinary films.

Why is this a .gif?

I remember reading a study that humans will always be disappointing by any decision they make between two roughly similar choices. In the study, they took pictures of things, and while one group was sent some photos back, the other group got to choose the photo, and the first group was much happier in the second when asked about the photographs.

I saw Dunkirk in a theatre with extremely comfortable chairs at a very highly priced ticket got it for free for me, a friend's birthday treat and BR 2049 was almost 3 hours so the thought of getting slightly more expensive tickets for more comfortable chairs was always there. But at the show, the seats I got weren't too different from regular seats, those actually seemed softer while mube were of leather. Had i known the type of seat I was getting then I would have easily chosen the regular ones and saved a few bucks. The price dufference wasn't much, whereas for Dunkirk, the expensive seats were at least 50% more than regular ones. That probably should have alerted me. Those types if seats would have been far more expensive.

I do see that study as being true in some sense. As they say, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

FF