Are deeply curved LED screens the way to the future for cinema?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Ultra-wide screens in several formats have come and gone in the past. From Cinerama and their copycats to recent failures like Barco Escape and ScreenX, a format that seems to hang on for now, they've all tried to increase the immersion by create a much wider picture than usual.

One thing is clear: Cinema needs to keep investing in innovation to stay relevant, in a market where entertainment content is ever more instantly accessible on any device and people enjoy an ever increasing picture quality, size and audio quality at home.

I recently stumbled across this video:

It's from a new attraction in Futuroscope, a futuristic theme park in France and once the place with the most IMAX screens in a square mile. The screen is billed as the biggest LED screen in the world and although it's hard to verify this and there are probably larger screens on some buildings around the world, it's still an impressive screen. What's most impressive about it is that it offers a true 360 degree vision without any seams. There is also no projection, so no need to adjust to blend and bend several images all over each other, but the biggest feat must be the enormous contrast and the true blacks this kind of technology can provide.

We've seen the first DCI-certified LED-based screens making an inroad into commercial cinema, but progress ever since seems slow. Is this the future for cinema or will the VR-brigade catch up and make us all look irrelevant?

[Steve Guttag]

Personally, being a curved screen fanatic, I hope to see a large deep curve screen make it to cinema again and LED (or like technology) would be key. Finally, a means of a curved field without the geometric distortions associated with projection. Now, if audio through emissive screens were adequately addressed, I'd think it could be the future for SOME cinemas. It would also end the debate over the mezzanine floor as there would be nothing up there. With a curved screen, there should be enough room to put sound equipment entirely behind it or go completely networked based audio and let the speakers themselves also be the amplifiers (which Meyersound already does though they do have a rackable input module).

[Carsten Kurz]

Okay, maybe my general attitude currently is too pessimistic, but: That auditorium is neither very busy, nor does the crowd seems to be too enthusiastic about what they see (admittedly, we don't see their faces, but I think we see enough to guess). Yeah, for a theme park, one probably has lower expectiations towards story, and more towards technical sensations. Whatever, at my age, I am more towards story and acting.

ISDCF and DCI are currently busy reasoning about LED screens - the chinese seem to offer more solutions for cinema, and it is not clear how far they get with DCI compliance, or, wether DCI compliance will be relevant within their own market. Will this content come from the closed circuit DCI compliant domain, or will they establish their own content realm. I am pretty sure that with the estimated market in china, Hollywood would have no problem to give up some of their concerns about strict DCI compliance. I mean, neither Barcos Escape nor ScreenX is DCI compliant.

LED screens that cover cinema needs cost 10 times as much as projection, and with a fading cinema market, these manufacturers simply can not achieve the sales figures they need. I doubt that Samsung or LG so far have earned any money with the few installations they sold into the cinema market. They would probably prefer mixed usage sites to broaden the sales scope. And yes, the audio part so far is still mostly unsolved. At least as far as classic cinema sound is concerned. But now that immersive audio is no longer exclusive ATMOS, other 'generic' IAB systems may be installed with direct view screens, and the missing formal ATMOS certification won't be a problem (unless one cares about the ATMOS brand name so much).

[Frank Angel]

Is there some kind of shaker box going on along with the image? I see audience members looking like there is some physical shaking going on. If so, just another indication that Mr. Scorsese's assessment that the "multiuniverse" films are no more than theme park rides and not real cinema. And I am equally as pessimistic as Carsten; can a "film" theme park ride bring in enough of an audience to 1) pay for what must be a wildly expensive video installation or 2) pay for the creation of content for this system? Can there really be an viable economy of scale for this business model? The content for this type of display has to appeal to a specific demographic, I imagine it will be that of preteens and 20-somethings; not exactly a broad spectrum of the population. I don't see "financial success" stenciled on this system.

And how does this system avoid all the issues that plagued its earlier parents -- Cinerama and IMAX -- which both suffered from the fact that the technology and spectacle which -- no argument here -- were impressive indeed, but were very light on a good STORY to engage the intellect-over-spectacle...and that ultimately contributed to their failure. Granted, on this video clip, there was no understandable dialogue so I have no idea if there was a story of any kind going on, but even if there were, I was bored after about 3 minutes; for two hours of that full screen kaledeioscopic movement, the Futurosope management better be handing out a free double dose of Xanax with each ticket.

So what exactly have we got with Futuroscope? We have a wildly expensive delivery system capable of delivering content that will be wildly expensive to produce and will only be able to be shown on that system i what I presume won't be more than a minuscule percentage of screens. I assume everything on that very impressive curved screen is created in a computer; and I also assume, like the system itself, content won't come cheap. And will there be enough of it? Luckily this system could easily present standard content theatrical features once the DCI problems are worked out, but that sure is a huge expanse of video panels going unused if all you are running on the system is 2.39:1 or 1.85:1 (ghasp) content. So who is going to invest in a project for this system that, just like Cinerama and IMAX, will have even less installations than 70mm had in its heyday? And as the people who were involved with Cinerama realized after the first 2 or 3 of their Cinerama films...basically travelogues...that without a STORY, the spectacle was not enough to sustain interest. The PROCESS isn't why people go to the movies -- proof of that is that they will watch a movie on a cell phone or laptop. The technology...the process is never enough; the rollercoast ride in CINERAMA was indeed thrilling, but it lasted for what,, three minutes? then what? As Lowell Thomas actually bragged about in his opening prologue before THIS IS CINERAMA: "The pictures you are now going to see have no plot, they have no stars, this is not a stage play or a feature film, nor a symphonic concert or an opera..." Well, turns out THAT proved not to be a workable model given that you can count on two hands the number of actual 3 strip Cinerama titles were produced and released. Mike Todd, one of the original founders of Cinerama, realized travelogues, no matter how big and curved the screen, simply isn't enough without a mind-grabbing story. He broke away from his own company to develop "Cinerama out of one hole," i.e. Todd-AO, and produced OKLAHOMA! and while 70mm Todd-AO was a spectacular process, it was OKLAHOMA! that made it a success.

Seems like while no doubt this video system is technologically impressive, as well all know, there are a myriad of processes that were also very impressive, but for any number of reasons, simply crashed and burned...sometimes before they even got off the ground. Futuroscope may be one of them (the dorky name doesn't help either).

[John Eickhof]

the audience motion appears to resemble iwerks or d-box motion seating, already in use in theme parks and cinemas. i had a d-box screen in a multiplex i managed, i admit given the right feature content, the motion seating brought an additional realism to what was on screen, however a typical drama or low action event it seemed like a waste of effect, thus only extreme action on the screen makes motion seating worth while.

[Leo Enticknap]

From Cinerama and their copycats to recent failures like Barco Escape and ScreenX, a format that seems to hang on for now, they've all tried to increase the immersion by create a much wider picture than usual.

According to ScreenX, Cinerama and Barco Escape never existed, and they are the first!

ScreenX.jpg

The last I knew, the rights owners to Cinerama are still active (I believe it's Decurion, owners of the Cinerama Dome, but am not 100% sure), and am a bit surprised that they haven't sent ScreenX a cease and desist letter in response to that billboard.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Personally, being a curved screen fanatic, I hope to see a large deep curve screen make it to cinema again and LED (or like technology) would be key. Finally, a means of a curved field without the geometric distortions associated with projection. Now, if audio through emissive screens were adequately addressed, I'd think it could be the future for SOME cinemas. It would also end the debate over the mezzanine floor as there would be nothing up there. With a curved screen, there should be enough room to put sound equipment entirely behind it or go completely networked based audio and let the speakers themselves also be the amplifiers (which Meyersound already does though they do have a rackable input module).

There are "transparent" perforated LED screens and they're often used for stage productions to put both speakers and additional lightning effects behind the screen. The problem though, with those perforated screens is that they reduce the potential resolution and increase the screen-door effect, which is one of the main disadvantages of a LED screen v.s. projection.

As for Meyersound, they also use line arrays for their main speaker setup, which, when developed even further, could overcome some of the behind-the-screen placement issues. Another option could be embracing the screen as a hard, reflective surface and strategically aim speakers at the screen…

LED screens that cover cinema needs cost 10 times as much as projection, and with a fading cinema market, these manufacturers simply can not achieve the sales figures they need. I doubt that Samsung or LG so far have earned any money with the few installations they sold into the cinema market. They would probably prefer mixed usage sites to broaden the sales scope.

The prices for LED screens have come down significantly the last few years, especially the medium sized screens. For our screening room, for example, a 4K LED wall, would be cheaper than buying a top-of-the-line projector suitable for post production. The increase in adoption of LED walls for all kinds of displaying-alternatives and the expected move from OLED to micro/nano-LED in the TV market will probably also bring down costs dramatically over the next few years. I think that DCI compliancy may even become an argument over here, as it is hurting the adoption of new technologies more than that it is helping to maintain a baseline quality standard.

Is there some kind of shaker box going on along with the image? I see audience members looking like there is some physical shaking going on.

It's not just shaking seats, the entire platform moves. If you look at the ceiling, the entire platform also seems to rotate around itself through a center axis. So, the screen seems to be truly 360 degrees, without a visible seam.

I surely don't think this is the future of how to watch a 2 hour plus feature film, with all the shaking and rotation going on. My point was more that it's now possible to construct truly seamless deeply curved screens and make them look good too.

According to ScreenX, Cinerama and Barco Escape never existed, and they are the first!

Some Barco representatives may happily let them run with that.

[Randy Stankey]

If these big LED screens require content in some special format that can only be played on a particular system, wouldn't that go toward satisfying the security requirement?

Even if content still needed to be encrypted, it might make it so that it didn't need frame-for-frame encryption and allow a simpler scheme? Wouldn't it?

[Marcel Birgelen]

MJPEG2000 doesn't have something like keyframes, so anything but encrypting the whole stream doesn't really make sense to me. Also, the encryption of DCPs isn't really the problem, the problem in itself, as it's pretty trivial to remove the encryption with the correct key.

The hard part is the "secure environment", the encryption almost up to the pixel-rendering level and the accompanying certification and re-certification on any major change.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Personally, being a curved screen fanatic, I hope to see a large deep curve screen make it to cinema again and LED (or like technology) would be key. Finally, a means of a curved field without the geometric distortions associated with projection. Now, if audio through emissive screens were adequately addressed, I'd think it could be the future for SOME cinemas. It would also end the debate over the mezzanine floor as there would be nothing up there. With a curved screen, there should be enough room to put sound equipment entirely behind it or go completely networked based audio and let the speakers themselves also be the amplifiers (which Meyersound already does though they do have a rackable input module).

It would seem to me that you would still have horizon bend depending on where you are seated, but at least no distortion otherwise.

[Steve Guttag]

There are "transparent" perforated LED screens and they're often used for stage productions to put both speakers and additional lightning effects behind the screen. The problem though, with those perforated screens is that they reduce the potential resolution and increase the screen-door effect, which is one of the main disadvantages of a LED screen v.s. projection.

If there are, I've haven't seen them but have seen presentations discussing them. That said, the dot pitch is such on screens like Onyx by Samsung that resolution would not be compromised, particularly for typical cinemas

Another option could be embracing the screen as a hard, reflective surface and strategically aim speakers at the screen

No! Just no! The use of the screen as an audio reflector is an absolute horrible/miserable idea. the seat-to-seat variation is HUGE. Samsung/JBL has tried it...horrible.

It would seem to me that you would still have horizon bend depending on where you are seated, but at least no distortion otherwise.

There is no distortion in the image. There is always distortion from one's seated perspective, no matter where they sit. On a flat screen, it is keystone perspective...you might be more used it it but it is very much there.

[Frank Angel]

That perspective distortion is present even in the natural way we see. Every angle you view in real life has distortion and the brain simple understands that and we don't perceive it as distortion at all. I have always been amazed how the eye/brain interface is constantly trying to normalize what we see and how we understand it. I have macular degeneration in my right eye; if I close my left eye, i see lots of distortions, especially on things like lines, where a horizontal line will look like it was drawn with wet paint and someone has smeared the paint either it upward or downward in certain places. But if I open both eyes, the line returns to normal and I see no distortion. The brain is ignoring the distortion. Same when we were making video transfers of anamorphic 35mm film with a process that combined letterboxing, left and right edge cropping and leaving 15% anamorphic squeeze still in the image, thus reducing the amount of top and bottom black bars and reducing the amount of edge loss. Thing is, you would think geez,wiewing and image with 15% anamorphic squeeze would be horrific, but again, the brain tends normalize that distortion. I was amazed how quickly movies with that compression left in would look normal and perfectly acceptable. Then again, almost anything would be more acceptable than pan and scan transfers.

Same principle when shooting 16mm with say a Bolex; a savvy camera operator knows that trying to keep one eye closed while looking thru the viewfinder for any length of time will pretty quickly cause the muscles in that closed eye to fatigue and even cause muscle pain. Seasoned camera operators know that you can look thru the viewfinder with both eyes open and with a little practice, train the brain to simply "see" only the viewfinder eye and ignore information from the other eye, thus eliminating the need to close one eye at all. And of course how incredible is our amazing ability to "white balance" every hue we encounter from nearly yellow to nearly blue and they will be seen as "white" without our needing to do anything!

[Geoff Jones]

One thing is clear: Cinema needs to keep investing in innovation to stay relevant, in a market where entertainment content is ever more instantly accessible on any device and people enjoy an ever increasing picture quality, size and audio quality at home.

Is this really clear?

I would be happy if theaters simply invested enough to ensure that the current technology was presented correctly and that every title was displayed on a reasonably large screen.

But I'm not an average moviegoer.

Based on the comments I've seen over the years, I think the average moviegoer would be happy if theaters invested enough (in auditorium monitoring) to get other moviegoers to shut the fuck up and put their goddamn phones away.

[Randy Stankey]

... The hard part is the "secure environment"...

I was trying to suggest that, if the playback system requires content in a format that can only be played in that particular theater or one just like it, the "secure environment" is the system, itself.

Sure, go ahead and copy the movie. It'll be so large and unwieldy that you can't store it on anything but a large hard drive. Even if you did copy the movie, you still couldn't play it because it is formatted for a particular type of display which is too large to fit inside the average living room and too expensive to obtain. If, somehow, you could manage to view the file, the image would be so distorted that it would be uncomfortable to watch.

Not saying that there wouldn't be any need for encryption. Just suggesting that the encryption could be less complicated.

[Frank Angel]

I think the average moviegoer would be happy if theaters invested enough (in auditorium monitoring) to get other moviegoers to shut the fuck up and put their goddamn phones away.

football player YES.gif