Not technically ED, but in the cinema in Peckham tonight...

[mumra]

Have to say, took my 3 year old to see 'Wall E' the other day at Peckham. Manager spotted us and gave us a booster seat and we positioned ourselves on the high seats at the back so we could not disturb anyone if said 3 year decided to comment on proceedings the whole way through. Unfortunately we left favourite cuddly toy there and did not realise until bed time, when I rang they sent someone to look straight away and and 2 days later when we picked up the toy all staff were aware of the toy and the situation and fell over themselves to get it for my child. So, no comment on actual facilities or the choice of films, but generally my experience was that I was impressed with the level of staff friendliness/politeness/helpfulness.

[eavesdropper]

There was a screen that was up at the EDT for a while on Tuesdays showing some good films, what happened to that?

[neecheecat]

Go to the Ritzy, it's so much better, also if you get a membership it works out good value for money (?4.50 before 5). I gave up with the cinema in Peckham as it smells bad and there are always people talking through the films.

[AcedOut]

Peckham was ok when it was only ?3ish, but it certainly isn't worth the currently inflated price tag. I would rather watch the film at home than pay ?5.50 to watch on a relatively small screen and rubbish soung with sticky floors and noisy yoofs. For two people paying ?11, you might as well wait and buy the DVD. Hardly what I'd call a bargain.

I go to Surrey Quays all the time though (it's only 10mins on bike) and find it fine. The biggest screens in the area and best sound. Loads of leg room and generally a quiet audience.

I've still yet to try Ritzy or Greenwich PH though. Been meaning to give those ago, but a BIG SCREEN and decent Dolby sound for me is essential. Not sure those will cut it?

[David Mc]

Maybe my expectations are low, but I find Peckham's cinema just fine. Have never been bothered by noisy people or sticky floors and the fact that it's walking distance and relatively cheap makes it a decent option. Some screens in the West End are smaller and often more than twice the price.

[luke dogwalker]

I don't like Peckham(td) I try to, but it just don't happen for me:'(

I go to Surrey Quays cinema, I quite like it there.

I know a cat called Mumra:))

[Jeremy]

Acedout, the sound at the Ritzy is just fine... are there any cinemas these days which don't have full surround sound? The screens are a decent size, although I have a feeling there is one smaller screen in there which is not so great. But it's been a while. There's also a decent bar in there.

The Surrey Quays Odeon is OK, I believe it is/was the first cinema in the UK to have digital projection capabilities in every screen. But obviously being an Odeon, the choice of films is strictly limited to the mainstream. And when the lights go up at the end, you realise how manky all the seats are.

[AcedOut]

Sticky floors I can put up with, but noisy people I can't.

If you're willing to travel, then West India Quays has one of the best cinemas in my opinion. THX certified sound and all very large screens. It always used to be quite cheap also, but I've not been there for a while now.

Btw - avoid digital screens (projectors) if you can. It's no way as good as traditional film (you can see the pixels and it's blurry). It's just a money saving exercise by the film companies as the cinemas simply download the movie via a satellite link or high speed internet connection. The only improvement is that it doesn't degrade over time. The last time I watched a film with a digital projector I almost walked out.

[figgins]

Going off-topic a bit, but my recent experience of digital screenings (in the West End) has been excellent. I would make an effort to see the digital rather than analogue screening of a film if at all possible.

[AcedOut]

figgins - what was better about it for you out of interest? For me, you could make out the pixels in the image and on panning shots, the image was quite blurry. Until they use LCD's with as many pixels as there are photo-particles in projection film, it's a losing battle. Plus the fact LCD's are still quite 'laggy' compared to changing the whole image at 25fps in film.

Maybe I'm being too technical, but I still found the picture inferior to film, aside from there being virtually no dust specs! But I like dust specs - that's all part of the movie theatre experience for me!

[Jeremy]

I imagine that different movies are filmed on different equipment, and cinemas can also have different gear. You may have been unlucky. I think most digital cinema should be 2048x1080, so I'm surprised you could see any pixelization. Even if you were sitting in the front row, with an ultra-sharp projection, I don't think that should happen. Perhaps the cinema had been a bit cheeky and downloaded a divx off bittorrent?!

Loads of stuff is already shot (or edited) digitally anyway, so there's no reason really why a digital projection should appear any more "blocky" than one where the digital image has been developed onto film (if that's the right phrase to use).

This could get like the old vinyl vs CD debate... there will always be people who prefer the perceived "warmth" and imperfections of the old analogue medium, but I'm afraid they're going against the mainstream opinion.

[figgins]

Jeremy - that's right: almost all films these days are shot and/or edited in a digital format, so putting them back onto celluloid is kind of a retrograde step. I've seen Iron Man, Wall-E and Man on Wire in digital, and they were all fine. Crisp images, very bright colours, no dust specs, no reel-change-jumps. For Wall-E I was in the front row and had no issues with the projection/image quality at all.

[AcedOut]

Really, most films are recorded in digital now!? I'd be surprised. You can't really talk about films such as Wall-E, since every step of the process is digital anyway, so as long as the resolution is maintained, then I'd agree it should be the best picture you can possibly get.

I still don't think that a modern LCD is up to scratch though, even if the resolution is extremely high.

figgins - What's Man on Wire like? I really wanted to see that, but missed it.

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure if *most* films are shot digitally yet, but I reckon most are digitally edited. So it's still being converted into digital before it gets converted back onto film.

A quick google tells me that the lowest D-Cinema standard refresh rate is 24 frames per second... which should be fine. But again, I'm sure some projection equipment is better quality than others.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Aced

Saw it at the End of the Road festival last week - fantastic in a word! See it asap

[AcedOut]

Sean - I can't wait to see it. I actually used to work on the top floor of WTC1 back in the summer of 2000 (was actually on the top floor the morning of Sep 11 2000), so I knew those towers pretty well. Looking forward to watching on DVD. Last I checked it wasn't still playing on screen.

It's not about the refresh rate of the digital projector. They all (to my knowledge) use LCD and I'm not sure the LCD can actually perfectly refresh at that rate. It takes a certain amount of time for a completely white picture (on) to turn perfectly black (off), since the crystals do not 'switch off' fast enough. I don't have time to research it completely, but someone will probably Wikipedia me wrong...

[figgins]

OK - "most" films might not be shot digitally, but they are certainly edited digitally. So - shot on celluloid, transferred to digital, then transferred back to celluloid.

As for CGI animation, yes, if projection is digital, then no "film" is ever involved.

And, as for "Man on Wire" - film of the year, mate, film of the year.