Lasers work well for Projectors in terms of brightness, and Size. There are some downsides though since you don't get the same viewing angle that you do with standard projection.
The reflection off of the screen tends to bounce back almost as straight as it hit, where as a standard beam of light radiates more on the reflection.
My home theater which is about the same as a Movie theater with regard to the seat placement that is fine. You can't get to a spot in the room where you'd be at a 45 degree angle. But in many people's homes, or for outdoor projection in commercial settings it can be an issue.
Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus is fixed.
Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get to match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors in 10 bit color, (10 bits x 4)
Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice.
Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more than projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up. With Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected dot is the right size, or some ratio of the right size.
Say a laser projects a dot, a pixel sort of, that is 1mm in size at a distance of 15 feet. at 1080p you would have no space between the dots if the projection was roughly 2 meters across.
Now you want to project something to the size of 4 meters across. With traditional projection you change the focal length or move the projector back and the dots get bigger.
With a laser you have to put 4 dots (2x2) to do this.
If you want a dot that is only 1.4 times the size you have to use 4 dots and over lap them.
The better Laser Projectors due this. They use up to 9 dots (3x3) and to where each Dot may only be 4 bits, using 9 dots you can fake more colors (3 red, 3 green 3 blue). Cheaper projectors use a technique similar to sub pixels and may use a Line rather than a dot (more like a Dash) for Red, and will have 7 dots 1 Red that is 3x the size, 3 Green, 3 blue.
In any case you have to have enough control over the laser to do the adjustments or you end up with gaps in the dots which are noticeable far more than the space between pixels that show up in DLP and LCD projectors.
Well, almost all of your arguments are true for MEMS based laser projectors from the late 90s only. Today's laser projectors are based on standard DLP, LCD or LCos projectors with the main difference of a laser light engine instead of xenon or uhp light bulbs. So, lets address your arguments one at a time.
>>There are some downsides though since you don't get the same viewing angle that you do with standard projection. The reflection off of the screen tends to bounce back almost as straight as it hit...
This isn't true at all. While Lasers do emit coherent light it doesn't cause laser to be reflected back straight reasonably more than standard light. The only issues with lasers is speckle which is caused by destructive and constructive interference of coherent light on rough surfaces. And as any projection surface is somewhat rough in respect to small wavelength, manufacturers have to take care of this issue by integrating laser over time inside the light engine. They do of course have trouble with green laser speckle due to the eyes higher sensitivity to green light but nevertheless they can reduce speckle by over 95 percent.
>>Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus is fixed.
This is also only true for MEMS based laser projectors from the 90s. Today's laser projectors are based on "standard" projection technology and therefore have changing focus over distance.
>>Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get to match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors in 10 bit color, (10 bits x 4)
Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice.
Image reproduction is still based on RGB. As long as you choose primaries that lie well outside the standard color spaces (DCI P3, BTU 709) you can always map colors to fit any colorspace inside this gamut. Colordepth is absolutely unaffected of the Laser itself. Only color derivation technology reduces bit depth. For example time sequential light engines like OSRAMs "Phaser" (phosphor laser) do have the same issues like one chip DLPs. You can not fit enough inter color segmentation inside one frame to get enough bit depth. 3 Chip DLPs with one laser engine per color have 10bit and even more color depth.
>>Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more than projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up. With Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected dot is the right size, or some ratio of the right size...
You do not shoot the laser "point" directly at the screen as with MEMS based laser projectors. Today's laser projectors replace lamps by laser light engines. You still use DLPs or LCos to reproduce the image.
I look forward to the day when digital projection catches up with film projection. I'm a little sick of spending extra to go to a 3D IMAX theater that uses a 4K projector split into 2K per eye. The result is big, obvious pixels that would have been filled with nuance if an IMAX or even 35mm film projector was used instead.
I hope Hollywood realizes that the dim, pixellated 3D IMAX movies of today are a huge disappointment compared to the breathtaking clarity of yesterday's IMAX film. It's simply insulting to customers that IMAX theaters still command premium prices. They should be discounting admission to digital IMAX theaters and apologizing for the current limitations of the technology.
Honestly I was always bothered more by the flicker of film projection than I have been by the resolution of digital projection. The low frame rate/high motion blur still annoys me so I'm looking forward to when they figure out getting 48fps to look "right".
The resolution of film has often been really bad too. Yeah, it's not pixels so you don't notice as clearly, but those corns of grain aren't exactly small either.
One of the traditional big inhibitors for laser projection in the USA is the FDA. Previously any public venue that uses laser projection requires special certification to operate which prohibits many theaters from rolling out these projectors. See: http://www.barco.com/en/News/Post/2014/4/15/US-FDA-product-v...
I am excited to see the technology progresses. Including expanded color spaces that can handle projection of higher dynamic range images with brighter highlights. Some of the new UHD standard proposes a new color space that will allow the dynamic range to increase dramatically. However lots of standards are coming out that should replace some of the existing digital standards such as BT.709 (HDTV) or perhaps even surpass BT.2020 with more dynamic range!
OK, raise your hand if the reason you don't go to movies is because the screens aren't big and bright enough.
Right, thought so.
This is cool and all, but I don't see how it's going to save the movie theater business, or the movie industry. I don't even have a fancy home theater and I'd rather watch movies at home, on my shitty laptop screen, than go out to the movies on the majority of occasions. The thing keeping me from going out is more to do with the cost (of the movie), the overpriced concessions, the 30 minutes of commercials and previews before the movie, the lack of a "pause" button so I can go take a wizz, the talking people in the row in front of me, the idiot behind me who keeps kicking the back of my seat, etc., etc., etc...
And note that these guys are looking at this as justification for raising ticket prices.
I just don't see it. OK, sure, hardcore cinemaphiles will go and slobber over this, but is the average movie-goer really going to care that the screen is a bit bigger, or that the color depth is a bit better? My guess is "no".
But hey, more power to them. But if you want more of my money, you're going to have to find a way to deliver a better experience, and bigger and brighter screens aren't going to do it.
The average movie-goer attends the cinema despite all the things you find objectionable, without necessarily being a cinephile. Since you much prefer to stay home already, you're not representative of the target demographic.
I feel like you're over-simplifying a bit. Look at it from the POV of the movie companies: they want to make more money, right? Off-hand, I see three obvious ways they can do that:
1. Get more people to go out to the theater for movies.
2. Get people who do go, to go more often.
3. Get people who do go, to pay more.
Now it seems clear they hope that this tech movement will support (3) above, but I'm thinking they also want (1) and / or (2) as well. And that's where I think this will fall short. That's where people like me, who do go to the movies, albeit not terribly often, probably aren't going to suddenly start going to 2x or 3x (or more) more movies, just because the screen is bigger/brighter. And I suspect the same is true for non-movie-goers.
Conversely, there is a risk that if they roll out these new projectors, and do raise prices, that they'll find still more people choosing to stay home, if they decide the increase in screen quality doesn't justify the price.
Anyway, don't get me wrong... it's not that I think this is a Bad Idea or anything. I am just skeptical that it's going to be the magic ticket to a massive surge in profitability for movie theaters and movie production companies.
We often say, "X will fail because I don't do X, and this proposed change makes me like X even less."
But if you're already not doing X, the change isn't for you anyway.*
Charitably though, we might interpret that argument as "My concerns are shared to a lesser extent by the marginal user of X. This change amplifies these concerns. Therefore, the change will cause X to lose marginal users."
For me, I don't go to the movies anymore because the internet is amazing and screens are cheap. Also, I like older movies as much as new ones, and being in a room with friends more than being with strangers.
I assume, maybe incorrectly, that the reason most movie consumers don't feel like I do is because they are not rabid technophiles. Maybe they just don't realize the fountain of entertainment they can easily put on a spectacularly sized display in their own home.
If I'm right, that that's the barrier, then once late adopters realize this, it may be game over for cinemas.
Maybe I'm wrong. We should ask, "Why do people actually go to the movies?"
*EDIT: It's a bit like everyone's complaint that 24 hour news isn't more intelligent. There was a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival where MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell basically said: We'd love to tell complex and deep stories. People who enjoy such stories though have busy lives and aren't home during primetime, they're going to the ballet, or outdoors, or reading a novel, and getting their news by scanning the internet for a few minutes each day. We run the market experiment against PBS every night.
Hmm, I'm a rabid technologist, but a 'spectacularly sized display in your own home' doesn't compare with a cinema screen unless you're in a very tiny demographic of ultra-wealthy people. I say that despite having pretty good projection capability at home.
Now admittedly I work in film so I care more than the typical cinemagoer about these things. But there is a vast difference between watching a well-photographed film on even the largest home theater screen and watching it projected full size with appropriate anamorphic lenses and so forth.
A) Ticket prices, which are freaking insane. We're approaching Bluray levels.
B) People talking / babies crying
C) If I don't get a good seat, the experience is pretty bad.
D) Many times there are technical problems, like an out of focus projector, or it's too dark, or too loud/quiet. I can't just get up and adjust any of that.
Having a 1080p projector + 200" screen at home is so much better.
do you live outside the US? because i've been to probably over a thousand in-theater movies in my life and have never heard a baby crying, and have seen technical problems like an out of focus projector only a handful of times. but i agree with A) and C).
It happens from time to time (maybe not the crying, but doing other kid stuff like fidgeting and asking questions), even in grown up movies that should never have had children watching them.
The problem in US is grown ups being way too loud in their laughing, shouting and talking. In any other country I've been it's accepted that cinemas are supposed to be a place where you listen to the movie rather than your neighbor, but in US it appears to be a social experience that you loudly share with your friends.
I don't think cinemas will die out. At least not all of them. They will have to adapt. In Germany there's a chain of 'luxury' cinemas where you get bigger, more comfortable seats and table service with them. It costs about 50% more than the ticket in your standard cinema. As far as I know, it's always sold out.
In Germany there's a chain of 'luxury' cinemas where you get bigger, more comfortable seats and table service with them. It costs about 50% more than the ticket in your standard cinema.
Things like that are kinda what I was thinking about as well. There are similar things here in the US, although I'm not sure how common they are.
Yes. Alamo is pretty much the only theater I'll go to. They don't have the best screens at most locations but theres more space and a table between each row. Here in Austin where Alamo started we have several of them around town and even a few competitors trying the same thing with a little more luxury. This is where theaters need to go to get my business. Total experience not just video and sound.
AFAI'm concerned, even the standard German cinema chains (Cinemaxx; UCI) have very decent theaters and seats.
And maybe it's because I avoid going to movies on Friday/Saturday night, or because I avoid the worst of blockbuster movies, but I almost never have problems with noisy people or children around me in the movies I see.
I like the cinema, but actually don't go very often. Laziness, I guess, and I'd have to adapt to their schedule.
Agreed! While I find these advancements in technology intriguing, I use to love going to the cinema but the thought of going to the cinema these days when it is such a disappointing experience these days.
Two biggest points which put me off:
1) People on mobile phones, texting/facebooking etc is bad enough but when did it become acceptable to answer the phone mid film?!
2) Anti piracy adverts, I have just paid £9 or something ridiculous to watch a film! I do not want to see a 1 minute about how I wouldn't steal a handbag!
When I think about the amount of money I have spent on my home cinema I do cry a little inside, but as a huge movie fan I'd much rather wait for it to be released and buy the blu-ray (for the same price as going to the cinema by the time you have factored a £4 drink into it, parking etc), rip to hard disk and strip the adverts off it and have the ability to pause it :)
"OK, raise your hand if the reason you don't go to movies is because the screens aren't big and bright enough."
I'm probably in the minority, but I actually don't go to the cinema if I know the film is being shown in a small auditorium. It doesn't matter what the type of film is, I want to see it on a medium or large screen. I hate walking into an auditorium only to find a tiny screen - it ruins the whole experience for me. You also pay the same ticket price as the cinemagoers watching a different film in a much larger auditorium (with bigger screen).
I realise that cinemas can't fill their larger auditoriums with certain films, but some of the smaller auditoriums I've sat in have screens not much bigger than what a home projector will give you. Unfortunately, a lot of indpendent cinemas have some of the smallest screens I've seen. I'd rather wait for the DVD than pay for a paltry screen experience.
So yes, for me at least, a bigger screen, and a brighter picture does influence whether or not I would go to the cinema.
I purchased a JVC DLA-X35B and made my own screen. Watched it a lot for about a year and sold it when I moved. It ended up costing me about 8$ per hour of playback, but I was able to be in my own home and adjust the light/sound/experience to be exactly what I wanted.
If you have the space and some disposable income, you should consider it!
I agree in all cases except for 3D, which I would pick in many cases over 2D if it weren't for how dim the picture gets when you split half the light into each eye.
The final nail in the coffin of cinema attendance, for me: Stories about bedbugs.
As for laser-lit screens, aside from lingering thoughts of "vaporware" on my part -- conditioned by years of "a performant pocket laser projector is just around the corner" stories -- my other thought might be that it's needed to outshine all the cell phone screens people invariable light up during the movie.
And, last time I was to the cinema, some of the CGI-heavy scenes in particular were actually rather dim. Amongst other things, I recall some news articles about the switch to digital projection and that a number of the digital projector designs actually "cheated", as a cost-saving measure, resulting in low/sub-standard output levels.
I won't watch very many new movies even at home. If the product's good enough, then that's the experience.
According to Martin Scorcese's movie-about-movies (Personal Journey), theaters used to be on-network with the studios. They would stagger releases to test audience acceptance. Then there was U.S. V. Paramount coupled with television. That led to the "Jaws" style hype and time-coherent releases.
Still, looking at parking lots at theaters, they appear full.
> The movie industry is among the world’s most important businesses. The Motion Picture Association of America says that films produced in the United States alone pulled in US $34.7 billion in worldwide box-office revenues in 2012.
That's not even a big number.. Apple earns more revenue every quarter, so do GM and Ford, it takes Google two quarters. These are companies not industries.
Projection is inherently a kludge compared to the screen being the light source. You are pushing light through air many times farther than in a small screening room and bouncing it off a relatively inefficient reflective screen.
large 4k panels are down into consumer prices now. That's the same resolution as theater projectors. "Home theater" is going to be what you have in your TV room. That is, even with laser projection, theaters are losing ground relative to what normal people will have in their homes, where they have control over cleanliness, seating, food, audio, etc. For that matter, people are consuming cinema much like they consume books: in bed, on tablets, with headphones on.
There is a reason cinema directors and writers are making, for lack of a better word, "TV" series. Movie theaters are an obsolete medium. This only herds theaters farther into a niche, where giant robots, skyscraper-sized monsters, and explosions are the only thing theaters can do better.
Really nice article with lots of nifty technical stuff about optics, lasers, etc.
But this thread also has a lot of thoughtful comments that
question the actual bottom line financial potential of this nifty technical stuff.
Here's much of the rest between the nifty technology and the financial bottom line: The art, entertainment, content, etc.
E.g., I've never paid much attention to ballet. Since early on I liked music and classical music, I have some CDs of the music to a few of the famous ballets, right, The Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Coppélia.
But, right, via YouTube, it was easy, e.g., to watch some of Coppélia, so I did. It's fun! It's a light comedy, with a cute story by Hoffmann (right, as in Tales of Hoffmann), and a LOT of really pretty girls (right, I'm a human male!) acting really cute!
Movies and the OP? I'm coming back to that with Coppélia
as an example!
The YouTube performance I watched was from The
Australian Ballet. Well, too soon that performance
was taken down on YouTube. Bummer! But, if The
Australian Ballet had used YouTube just as a
free sample, then it worked because I bought the DVD.
Now the DVD of Coppélia
on my computer is really nice, nicer to watch
than via YouTube. No matter how the work
goes on a day, a little Coppélia
will make the day a lot better.
Why? Lasers? Nope! Instead of lasers,
what's good is just the
art, entertainment, content, and these
come across quite nicely via the DVD.
The music is terrific; the
story is cute; the girls are
really pretty. Drive 50 miles to a 3D, 4K laser
movie version at big bucks? Likely
not.
Why? There's an old point: Once long
ago a guy asked a child which he
liked better, radio dramas or TV
dramas. The boy said radio.
For why, he said, "The pictures
are much better on radio.". Yup.
Sorry laser guys: Some of the best
pictures are what the
viewer forms in their head
from just hints from the
content itself.
Sit down, laser guys: I have a DVD
of the original 1933 King Kong. It's
just black and white, but it's still fun!
The nicest part is the interplay with
the Fay Wary character, the poor, pretty,
sweet, naive girl, the older, powerful,
assertive, rich movie producer, the
hard boiled crew of the ship, etc., the
beauty and beast theme -- all that comes
across very nicely with just that old
1933 black and white version.
My wife understood drama: So, once she
took us to a summer stock play, only
a few actors, a small stage, a small audience,
and afterward pointed out to me how
there is some magic to the theater,
that the audience can really get into
the story and experience with just the
hints of such meager production values.
Not nearly new since such drama
goes way back in English literature
and the ancient Greek theater.
Net, the main issue is the content, not
the technology.
35 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 91.0 ms ] threadThe reflection off of the screen tends to bounce back almost as straight as it hit, where as a standard beam of light radiates more on the reflection.
My home theater which is about the same as a Movie theater with regard to the seat placement that is fine. You can't get to a spot in the room where you'd be at a 45 degree angle. But in many people's homes, or for outdoor projection in commercial settings it can be an issue.
Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus is fixed.
Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get to match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors in 10 bit color, (10 bits x 4)
Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice.
Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more than projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up. With Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected dot is the right size, or some ratio of the right size.
Say a laser projects a dot, a pixel sort of, that is 1mm in size at a distance of 15 feet. at 1080p you would have no space between the dots if the projection was roughly 2 meters across.
Now you want to project something to the size of 4 meters across. With traditional projection you change the focal length or move the projector back and the dots get bigger. With a laser you have to put 4 dots (2x2) to do this.
If you want a dot that is only 1.4 times the size you have to use 4 dots and over lap them.
The better Laser Projectors due this. They use up to 9 dots (3x3) and to where each Dot may only be 4 bits, using 9 dots you can fake more colors (3 red, 3 green 3 blue). Cheaper projectors use a technique similar to sub pixels and may use a Line rather than a dot (more like a Dash) for Red, and will have 7 dots 1 Red that is 3x the size, 3 Green, 3 blue.
In any case you have to have enough control over the laser to do the adjustments or you end up with gaps in the dots which are noticeable far more than the space between pixels that show up in DLP and LCD projectors.
>>There are some downsides though since you don't get the same viewing angle that you do with standard projection. The reflection off of the screen tends to bounce back almost as straight as it hit...
This isn't true at all. While Lasers do emit coherent light it doesn't cause laser to be reflected back straight reasonably more than standard light. The only issues with lasers is speckle which is caused by destructive and constructive interference of coherent light on rough surfaces. And as any projection surface is somewhat rough in respect to small wavelength, manufacturers have to take care of this issue by integrating laser over time inside the light engine. They do of course have trouble with green laser speckle due to the eyes higher sensitivity to green light but nevertheless they can reduce speckle by over 95 percent.
>>Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus is fixed.
This is also only true for MEMS based laser projectors from the 90s. Today's laser projectors are based on "standard" projection technology and therefore have changing focus over distance.
>>Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get to match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors in 10 bit color, (10 bits x 4) Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice.
Image reproduction is still based on RGB. As long as you choose primaries that lie well outside the standard color spaces (DCI P3, BTU 709) you can always map colors to fit any colorspace inside this gamut. Colordepth is absolutely unaffected of the Laser itself. Only color derivation technology reduces bit depth. For example time sequential light engines like OSRAMs "Phaser" (phosphor laser) do have the same issues like one chip DLPs. You can not fit enough inter color segmentation inside one frame to get enough bit depth. 3 Chip DLPs with one laser engine per color have 10bit and even more color depth.
>>Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more than projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up. With Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected dot is the right size, or some ratio of the right size...
You do not shoot the laser "point" directly at the screen as with MEMS based laser projectors. Today's laser projectors replace lamps by laser light engines. You still use DLPs or LCos to reproduce the image.
I hope Hollywood realizes that the dim, pixellated 3D IMAX movies of today are a huge disappointment compared to the breathtaking clarity of yesterday's IMAX film. It's simply insulting to customers that IMAX theaters still command premium prices. They should be discounting admission to digital IMAX theaters and apologizing for the current limitations of the technology.
The resolution of film has often been really bad too. Yeah, it's not pixels so you don't notice as clearly, but those corns of grain aren't exactly small either.
I am excited to see the technology progresses. Including expanded color spaces that can handle projection of higher dynamic range images with brighter highlights. Some of the new UHD standard proposes a new color space that will allow the dynamic range to increase dramatically. However lots of standards are coming out that should replace some of the existing digital standards such as BT.709 (HDTV) or perhaps even surpass BT.2020 with more dynamic range!
Right, thought so.
This is cool and all, but I don't see how it's going to save the movie theater business, or the movie industry. I don't even have a fancy home theater and I'd rather watch movies at home, on my shitty laptop screen, than go out to the movies on the majority of occasions. The thing keeping me from going out is more to do with the cost (of the movie), the overpriced concessions, the 30 minutes of commercials and previews before the movie, the lack of a "pause" button so I can go take a wizz, the talking people in the row in front of me, the idiot behind me who keeps kicking the back of my seat, etc., etc., etc...
And note that these guys are looking at this as justification for raising ticket prices.
I just don't see it. OK, sure, hardcore cinemaphiles will go and slobber over this, but is the average movie-goer really going to care that the screen is a bit bigger, or that the color depth is a bit better? My guess is "no".
But hey, more power to them. But if you want more of my money, you're going to have to find a way to deliver a better experience, and bigger and brighter screens aren't going to do it.
1. Get more people to go out to the theater for movies.
2. Get people who do go, to go more often.
3. Get people who do go, to pay more.
Now it seems clear they hope that this tech movement will support (3) above, but I'm thinking they also want (1) and / or (2) as well. And that's where I think this will fall short. That's where people like me, who do go to the movies, albeit not terribly often, probably aren't going to suddenly start going to 2x or 3x (or more) more movies, just because the screen is bigger/brighter. And I suspect the same is true for non-movie-goers.
Conversely, there is a risk that if they roll out these new projectors, and do raise prices, that they'll find still more people choosing to stay home, if they decide the increase in screen quality doesn't justify the price.
Anyway, don't get me wrong... it's not that I think this is a Bad Idea or anything. I am just skeptical that it's going to be the magic ticket to a massive surge in profitability for movie theaters and movie production companies.
We often say, "X will fail because I don't do X, and this proposed change makes me like X even less."
But if you're already not doing X, the change isn't for you anyway.*
Charitably though, we might interpret that argument as "My concerns are shared to a lesser extent by the marginal user of X. This change amplifies these concerns. Therefore, the change will cause X to lose marginal users."
For me, I don't go to the movies anymore because the internet is amazing and screens are cheap. Also, I like older movies as much as new ones, and being in a room with friends more than being with strangers.
I assume, maybe incorrectly, that the reason most movie consumers don't feel like I do is because they are not rabid technophiles. Maybe they just don't realize the fountain of entertainment they can easily put on a spectacularly sized display in their own home.
If I'm right, that that's the barrier, then once late adopters realize this, it may be game over for cinemas.
Maybe I'm wrong. We should ask, "Why do people actually go to the movies?"
*EDIT: It's a bit like everyone's complaint that 24 hour news isn't more intelligent. There was a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival where MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell basically said: We'd love to tell complex and deep stories. People who enjoy such stories though have busy lives and aren't home during primetime, they're going to the ballet, or outdoors, or reading a novel, and getting their news by scanning the internet for a few minutes each day. We run the market experiment against PBS every night.
Now admittedly I work in film so I care more than the typical cinemagoer about these things. But there is a vast difference between watching a well-photographed film on even the largest home theater screen and watching it projected full size with appropriate anamorphic lenses and so forth.
What keeps me away from the movie theaters are
A) Ticket prices, which are freaking insane. We're approaching Bluray levels.
B) People talking / babies crying
C) If I don't get a good seat, the experience is pretty bad.
D) Many times there are technical problems, like an out of focus projector, or it's too dark, or too loud/quiet. I can't just get up and adjust any of that.
Having a 1080p projector + 200" screen at home is so much better.
Things like that are kinda what I was thinking about as well. There are similar things here in the US, although I'm not sure how common they are.
AMC has experimented with a similar approach in a few places, not every theater.
And maybe it's because I avoid going to movies on Friday/Saturday night, or because I avoid the worst of blockbuster movies, but I almost never have problems with noisy people or children around me in the movies I see.
I like the cinema, but actually don't go very often. Laziness, I guess, and I'd have to adapt to their schedule.
Two biggest points which put me off: 1) People on mobile phones, texting/facebooking etc is bad enough but when did it become acceptable to answer the phone mid film?! 2) Anti piracy adverts, I have just paid £9 or something ridiculous to watch a film! I do not want to see a 1 minute about how I wouldn't steal a handbag!
When I think about the amount of money I have spent on my home cinema I do cry a little inside, but as a huge movie fan I'd much rather wait for it to be released and buy the blu-ray (for the same price as going to the cinema by the time you have factored a £4 drink into it, parking etc), rip to hard disk and strip the adverts off it and have the ability to pause it :)
This projector will be cheaper over time, and more and more people will be able to do that.
About the "3D thing", good for them if they want to raise tickets with it, but it is not for me.
It is not real 3D, just for those that have stereopsis their main way of understanding space. But neither my family or me do.
I'm probably in the minority, but I actually don't go to the cinema if I know the film is being shown in a small auditorium. It doesn't matter what the type of film is, I want to see it on a medium or large screen. I hate walking into an auditorium only to find a tiny screen - it ruins the whole experience for me. You also pay the same ticket price as the cinemagoers watching a different film in a much larger auditorium (with bigger screen).
I realise that cinemas can't fill their larger auditoriums with certain films, but some of the smaller auditoriums I've sat in have screens not much bigger than what a home projector will give you. Unfortunately, a lot of indpendent cinemas have some of the smallest screens I've seen. I'd rather wait for the DVD than pay for a paltry screen experience.
So yes, for me at least, a bigger screen, and a brighter picture does influence whether or not I would go to the cinema.
If you have the space and some disposable income, you should consider it!
The final nail in the coffin of cinema attendance, for me: Stories about bedbugs.
As for laser-lit screens, aside from lingering thoughts of "vaporware" on my part -- conditioned by years of "a performant pocket laser projector is just around the corner" stories -- my other thought might be that it's needed to outshine all the cell phone screens people invariable light up during the movie.
And, last time I was to the cinema, some of the CGI-heavy scenes in particular were actually rather dim. Amongst other things, I recall some news articles about the switch to digital projection and that a number of the digital projector designs actually "cheated", as a cost-saving measure, resulting in low/sub-standard output levels.
According to Martin Scorcese's movie-about-movies (Personal Journey), theaters used to be on-network with the studios. They would stagger releases to test audience acceptance. Then there was U.S. V. Paramount coupled with television. That led to the "Jaws" style hype and time-coherent releases.
Still, looking at parking lots at theaters, they appear full.
I'm sorry, but revenue does not equal importance.
If you say so...
large 4k panels are down into consumer prices now. That's the same resolution as theater projectors. "Home theater" is going to be what you have in your TV room. That is, even with laser projection, theaters are losing ground relative to what normal people will have in their homes, where they have control over cleanliness, seating, food, audio, etc. For that matter, people are consuming cinema much like they consume books: in bed, on tablets, with headphones on.
There is a reason cinema directors and writers are making, for lack of a better word, "TV" series. Movie theaters are an obsolete medium. This only herds theaters farther into a niche, where giant robots, skyscraper-sized monsters, and explosions are the only thing theaters can do better.
But this thread also has a lot of thoughtful comments that question the actual bottom line financial potential of this nifty technical stuff.
Here's much of the rest between the nifty technology and the financial bottom line: The art, entertainment, content, etc.
E.g., I've never paid much attention to ballet. Since early on I liked music and classical music, I have some CDs of the music to a few of the famous ballets, right, The Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Coppélia.
But, right, via YouTube, it was easy, e.g., to watch some of Coppélia, so I did. It's fun! It's a light comedy, with a cute story by Hoffmann (right, as in Tales of Hoffmann), and a LOT of really pretty girls (right, I'm a human male!) acting really cute!
Movies and the OP? I'm coming back to that with Coppélia as an example!
The YouTube performance I watched was from The Australian Ballet. Well, too soon that performance was taken down on YouTube. Bummer! But, if The Australian Ballet had used YouTube just as a free sample, then it worked because I bought the DVD.
Now the DVD of Coppélia on my computer is really nice, nicer to watch than via YouTube. No matter how the work goes on a day, a little Coppélia will make the day a lot better.
Why? Lasers? Nope! Instead of lasers, what's good is just the art, entertainment, content, and these come across quite nicely via the DVD. The music is terrific; the story is cute; the girls are really pretty. Drive 50 miles to a 3D, 4K laser movie version at big bucks? Likely not.
Why? There's an old point: Once long ago a guy asked a child which he liked better, radio dramas or TV dramas. The boy said radio. For why, he said, "The pictures are much better on radio.". Yup.
Sorry laser guys: Some of the best pictures are what the viewer forms in their head from just hints from the content itself.
Sit down, laser guys: I have a DVD of the original 1933 King Kong. It's just black and white, but it's still fun! The nicest part is the interplay with the Fay Wary character, the poor, pretty, sweet, naive girl, the older, powerful, assertive, rich movie producer, the hard boiled crew of the ship, etc., the beauty and beast theme -- all that comes across very nicely with just that old 1933 black and white version.
My wife understood drama: So, once she took us to a summer stock play, only a few actors, a small stage, a small audience, and afterward pointed out to me how there is some magic to the theater, that the audience can really get into the story and experience with just the hints of such meager production values. Not nearly new since such drama goes way back in English literature and the ancient Greek theater.
Net, the main issue is the content, not the technology.