
First LED cinema screen in the U.S.A. officially opened - adrian_mrd
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/how-new-led-cinema-screen-could-change-filmmaking-moviegoing-1104745
======
carlob
> which is 14 foot-lamberts (a measure of luminance in cinema). In comparison,
> the LED screen has a peak brightness level around 300 nits (a measurement of
> brightness)

in case anyone is wondering:

[https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300+nits%2F14+footlamb...](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300+nits%2F14+footlambert)

more than 6 times the brightness per unit area

~~~
plaguuuuuu
Nice. So now, in addition to being deaf after watching movies at the cinema, I
can also be blind as well.

------
rmason
Surprised nobody is pointing out the possible labor savings. No more
projectionists. One or two people will be able to remotely run 20,000 screens
because it will be mostly automated. Once they fully automate the vending of
tickets the only people needed will be those running the concession stand.

~~~
rurban
That's already done. It's called multiplex. The projectionist controlls the
6-35 digital screens in his theatre complex, and the money comes from the
foodstand. Since the studios demand too high fees for the movies, theatres
have to stay profitable by selling food and drinks. Quality of the movies and
the projections sink, but interestingly the quality of the food is rising.

~~~
chii
> quality of the food is rising.

unless you're buying some gold class dining ticket (which tends to cost
upwards of 100 dollars), the food (or snacks) is terribly overpriced and
quality isn't getting better.

------
diminoten
The article seems to pitch LED screens as something to upcharge for, which
makes me think there isn't really any/enough cost savings for the theater from
a "no projection booth" standpoint, but that does surprise me a little.
Obviously the costs of paying a person to run the booth isn't high, but
perhaps the lower likelihood of something going wrong has its benefits as
well.

I could see a marketing push for the, "New LED Screen!" but if cinemagoers
aren't generally able to notice a substantial difference (or if it's a worse
experience, even), then I don't really think people will opt in. After all,
even the 3d push has basically died, and that's a substantially different
experience.

~~~
TomMarius
Regarding 3D - a lot of people have slightly (or completely, for example me)
different eyes. For these people, 3D movies cause headache and it's not a
pleasant experience overall - the last time I visited a 3D cinema, I wasn't
even able to look at the projection without my eyes hurting, thankfully it was
just a short educational sketch.

~~~
sathackr
What gives me a headache is not being able to control the focus. Normally you
can choose to focus on something close or far away. With a 3D screen, the
focal point is always the same. Something that's not in focus on the screen
can't be brought into focus.

The problem is the same for non-3D screens, but they don't bother me(probably
because I've been looking at 2D screens my entire life). The added 3D effect
is what seems to trigger it for me.

------
skynetv2
wont LED screens cause more stress on the eyes than a projection? I hate 3D
movies, my eyes feel very tired from the constant refocusing. I think LED
screens at this size and in a dark environment would have the same effect.

~~~
modeless
No, why would they?

~~~
sathackr
Most LEDs have their brightness controlled via PWM, which essentially switches
the LED on and off many thousand times per second.

You can see this in most LED car taillights if you move your eyes while paying
attention to the light -- it will create a 'strobe' effect, a trail of images
along the path that it traveled in your field of view.

Some people are sensitive to this flicker. A similar thing happens with most
DLP projectors.

~~~
LeoPanthera
Most people could barely perceive the flicker of 60Hz CRT televisions. The kHz
refresh of LEDs is not perceptible.

~~~
sathackr
There are plenty of people[1] that can perceive whatever PWM frequency is
typically used in vehicle LED taillights. Like a few the people in the linked
forum, the switching in the vertical Cadillac tail lights are particularly
visible to me.

I agree that when viewed directly, it's quite unlikely anyone can perceive a
switching frequency in the thousands of hertz. But if you sit in one of the
closer seats, your eyes will be darting back and forth across the screen,
which would be enough for that strobe effect to bother me if the frequency is
anywhere near what is used in the taillights.

[1]
[https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=451...](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45126.0)

------
SuperNinKenDo
why would I want to go watch a TV screen at the cinema?

~~~
NotHereNotThere
Because it's still a huge screen with high quality audio?

Why would you care how the image gets on the screen of it ends up looking
better?

~~~
matt-attack
On the contrary, the audio is horrible (Yes, I've heard it). Movie screens are
perforated to permit "screen speakers" to be positioned directly behind the
screen. LED screens do not allow such positioning. The center channel (i.e.
where most dialog emanates) is positioned above the top of the screen. This
has the effect of disassociating the voice from the speaker and breaking the
suspension of disbelief.

~~~
zaarn
I doubt this will break the suspension of disbelief that easily. People have
no problem listening to Movies on crappy stereo or mono on their laptop's
display speakers or using crappy 3.5mm earplugs (sometimes with only one plug
in the ears).

------
mtgx
Hopefully they won't sell too many of these before they can build Rec. 2100
screens with HDR and much larger color gamut. MicroLED tech would be nice,
too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2100)

