 |
|
|
|||||
Whenever my wife and I go to watch a movie together, lately we tend to pick a new theater close to where we live that’s called 109 Cinemas Premium Shinjuku. There are reclining seats, you get free popcorn in a chill lounge when you arrive, and the supposedly best-in-Japan sound system was tuned by the late music legend Ryuichi Sakamoto. Whats not to like? But when we went to see 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple this past weekend, we realized it was only showing in the auditorium dedicated to ScreenX, a fairly new format that has been picking up some steam of late. Id heard of it before but I hadnt ever seen it for myself, so I was happy to check it out in the spirit of technological open-mindedness. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/multicore.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/multicore-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Multicore\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Multicore is about technology hardware and design. It\u0027s written from Tokyo by Sam Byford. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.multicore.blog\/\u0022\u003Emulticore.blog\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.multicore.blog\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91454027,"imageMobileId":91454030,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} Three screens in one The X in ScreenX appears to stand for expanded or extended, because ultimately, what you get is three screens in one. Youre mostly just watching a regular 2D movie screen in front of you, but the footage spills onto the sides of the theater for a 270-degree view. ScreenX was developed by South Korean theater chain CJ CGV, a subsidiary of one of the countrys largest conglomerates. CJ was also behind the 4DX format that competes with other 4D systems like D-Box and MX4D, with various theater chains adopting one or the other. While ScreenX has been niche in most of the Western world to date, leading American chain AMC struck a deal with CJ last year to add 25 ScreenX auditoriums and 40 4DX screens across the U.S and Europe. Domestic competitor Cinemark also increased its ScreenX footprint, with plans to add 18 auditoriums in the U.S. over 2025 and 2026. Thats to say that you might well come across it soon without knowing what youre in for, just as I did. And I really wasnt sure what to expect when going into this showing of The Bone Temple. The combination of Nia DaCosta as director and Sean Bobbitt as cinematographer didnt make me think this would be a movie that was sloppy about its frame composition. And yet clearly, it couldnt actually have been filmed at such an ultra-wide aspect ratio. Where was the footage on the sides even coming from? A little distracting The first thing I noticed about the ScreenX footage is that its actually quite easy to ignore. We had good, centrally located seats, but the screens on the left and right walls were significantly dimmer than the central screen. Thats probably for the best, because it allows you to focus on the actual movie while the extended area serves as added ambience. On the other hand, Id estimate that there was only about an hour of actual ScreenX footage, or roughly half of the movie. Generally, it tended to be used for outdoor scenes, while the side panels were switched off for interior scenes or tighter shots. This back-and-forth could be a little distracting; the side panels faded in and out gradually, but the lights on the projectors themselves flicked on and off with every transition. Overall, though, I thought the ScreenX scenes were quite effective in The Bone Temple. At times when characters were running away from infected humans, for example, you got a better sense of how they were being stalked through the forest, with the shaky camera movements placed into context by the wider perspective. CJ says that it works with directors to help create ScreenX footage in post-production, making use of unused second-unit shots, alternate angles, and CGI extensions. Its hard to tell exactly what youre looking at when you concentrate on the extended footage, not least because it tends to be quite blurryas youd expect from any lens pushed to that extreme. But I didnt see anything particularly jarring or low-quality. Even though I was looking at each screen from a different angle, the transitions were seamless. A picky viewer I am quite picky about the theaters I watch movies infor example, last year I made a point of going to Tokyos only true 1.43:1 IMAX theater to see Sinners and One Battle After Another. I would not describe ScreenX as a transformative moviegoing experience on that level. But I think it could have its place. For movies like The Bone Temple, which is unlikely to be filmed with formats like IMAX in mind but could still benefit from a more immersive presentation due to its intense action, I could see ScreenX being a solid option. Unlike 3D or 4D, there isnt really much compromise or distractionyou can just watch the main screen as usual and absorb the extra footage without actually paying attention. At the same time, its hard to imagine a movie in which ScreenX would ever be the definitive way to watch it. No director is truly framing their movie with ScreenX in mind; whats in the regular composition is always going to be the actual movie. No one will be watching the ScreenX footage once it leaves theaters. As such, Id describe ScreenX as a gimmick, but not a particularly destructive one. I dont feel like it had a negative impact on my appreciation of The Bone Templewhich I thought was fantastic, by the wayand I think its fine for theaters to make use of fun formats like this that cant be replicated at home. Just know that youre not missing out on all that much if you decide to wait for this movie to come to streaming. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/multicore.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/12\/multicore-mobile.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Multicore\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Multicore is about technology hardware and design. It\u0027s written from Tokyo by Sam Byford. To learn more visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.multicore.blog\/\u0022\u003Emulticore.blog\u003C\/a\u003E","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.multicore.blog\/","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91454027,"imageobileId":91454030,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
We’re witnessing an unprecedented explosion in creative capability. Voice interfaces are removing barriers for billions who found keyboards cumbersome. AI image generators can mock up virtually any creative direction instantly. The technical constraints that once defined creative work are dissolving. Yet this abundance creates a new challenge: when everything becomes possible, the possibilities overwhelm us. What then becomes most valuable is knowing whats worth making. I predict that in 2026, the question “should we build this?” will matter more than “can we build this?” The capability surplus The AI conversation is all about capabilities. What you can make. How fast you can make it. What’s now possible. But there’s a gap emerging between what we can create and what we should create. McKinsey’s November 2025 State of AI report reveals a telling paradox: 88% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function, yet only 39% report enterprise-level financial impact. Theyre capturing value in isolated use cases but struggling to translate that into long-term growth or improved profit margins. The gap is knowing where to apply it and how to create a framework so that it can actually make an impact. The skills everyone can hone in 2026 This shift creates genuine opportunity for every creator, professional, and anyone who cares about honing their craft while scaling their impact. When creative execution becomes universally available, three things become differentiators: Starting with better questions: “How can we have the greatest impact? Which decisions should stay human? Where does automation create fragility?” These aren’t constraints. They’re the frameworks that prevent cognitive overload when everything is technically possible. Developing taste through iteration: Just as calculators didn’t eliminate the need for mathematical understanding, AI doesn’t eliminate the need for creative foundations. But here’s what changes: the ability to rapidly iterate with AI actually accelerates taste development. You get more attempts, tighter feedback cycles, and faster learning. You build judgment by making more decisions, not fewer. Knowing when to publish: When AI can generate countless variations instantly, pressing the button to share something with someone becomes the defining creative act. What you send, when you send it, who receives it. These decisions shape identity and message in ways that generation alone cannot. What tools and platforms can enable now If knowing what to make is the new skill, the tools that help us develop that skill won’t be just an obsequious yes-man. The most valuable AI tools won’t be those that simply execute your vision, but those that act as creative partners. I predict that tools will emerge that provide the right amount of friction to push your creative ideas. The role of creative platforms will shift from providing capability to providing capability plus judgment scaffolding built into the product. This means: Tools that challenge ideas rather than just execute them Interfaces that know when to stay silent rather than interrupt constantly (fewer notifications, fewer decisions, fewer interruptions) Features that help users understand why a choice works, not just that it does The new creative spectrum We’re moving toward multiple valid modes of creation: human-only, AI-only, AI + human (sometimes openly disclosed, sometimes invisible). Rather than one approach dominating, this spectrum will generate different types of work and different conversations about craft. We will see “not made with AI” declarations coexist with behind-the-scenes AI integration as standard practice. This reflects an expansion of possibilities. More people will have access to creative tools than ever before. The question is whether they’ll develop the judgment to use them well. What success looks like now The optimistic case for 2026 isn’t that AI makes creativity effortless. It’s that AI makes creativity accessible, then rewards those who develop judgment within that access. Billions of people now have access to professional-grade creative tools. Will we drown in celebrity deepfakes, or will we see an emerging class of contemporary artists? This depends on how well we build “judgment frameworks” into the AI tools we use and our ways of working. We need to use AI tools with discernment, but we also need to hold each other accountable to think deeply and think before we publish. The most in-demand professionals will be those who can reframe messy questions, challenge false assumptions, and decide what not to optimize. Why? Because when everyone has access to the same generation tools, the baseline quality of output rises, but so does the volume of mediocre work that looks professional but lacks strategic intent. We’re already seeing the consequences of capability without discernment: marketing campaigns that are technically polished but strategically incoherent, designs that follow trends without serving user needs, code that runs but creates technical debt. Coca-Cola’s 2024 AI-generated holiday campaign was technically polished but felt “soulless” to audiences who expected the brand’s traditional warmth, while McDonald’s’ Netherlands’ AI holiday ad was pulld after just three days following intense backlash. And in code, GitClear’s 2024 analysis of 211 million lines found that copy-pasted code blocks increased eightfold, generating code that runs but creates the kind of technical debt that compounds into future headaches. The winners in this new landscapeboth creators and platformswill be those who can cut through the noise. Who develop the human skill to know which problems are worth solving. Who understand that unlimited possibility doesn’t mean every possibility is valuable. The competitive advantage shifts from I can make this to I know this is worth making.
Category:
E-Commerce
Businesses are acting fast to adopt agentic AIartificial intelligence systems that work without human guidancebut have been much slower to put governance in place to oversee them, a new survey shows. That mismatch is a major source of risk in AI adoption. In my view, its also a business opportunity. Im a professor of management information systems at Drexel Universitys LeBow College of Business, which recently surveyed more than 500 data professionals through its Center for Applied AI and Business Analytics. We found that 41% of organizations are using agentic AI in their daily operations. These arent just pilot projects or one-off tests. Theyre part of regular workflows. At the same time, governance is lagging. Only 27% of organizations say their governance frameworks are mature enough to monitor and manage these systems effectively. In this context, governance is not about regulation or unnecessary rules. It means having policies and practices that let people clearly influence how autonomous systems work, including who is responsible for decisions, how behavior is checked, and when humans should get involved. This mismatch can become a problem when autonomous systems act in real situations before anyone can intervene. For example, during a recent power outage in San Francisco, autonomous robotaxis got stuck at intersections, blocking emergency vehicles and confusing other drivers. The situation showed that even when autonomous systems behave as designed, unexpected conditions can lead to undesirable outcomes. This raises a big question: When something goes wrong with AI, who is responsibleand who can intervene? Why governance matters When AI systems act on their own, responsibility no longer lies where organizations expect it. Decisions still happen, but ownership is harder to trace. For instance, in financial services, fraud detection systems increasingly act in real time to block suspicious activity before a human ever reviews the case. Customers often only find out when their card is declined. So, what if your card is mistakenly declined by an AI system? In that situation, the problem isnt with the technology itselfits working as it was designedbut with accountability. Research on human-AI governance shows that problems happen when organizations dont clearly define how people and autonomous systems should work together. This lack of clarity makes it hard to know who is responsible and when they should step in. Without governance designed for autonomy, small issues can quietly snowball. Oversight becomes sporadic and trust weakens, not because systems fail outright, but because people struggle to explain or stand behind what the systems do. When humans enter the loop too late In many organizations, humans are technically in the loop, but only after autonomous systems have already acted. People tend to get involved once a problem becomes visiblewhen a price looks wrong, a transaction is flagged, or a customer complains. By that point, the system has already been decided, and human review becomes corrective rather than supervisory. Late intervention can limit the fallout from individual decisions, but it rarely clarifies who is accountable. Outcomes may be corrected, yet responsibility remains unclear. Recent guidance shows that when authority is unclear, human oversight becomes informal and inconsistent. The problem is not human involvement, but timing. Without governance designed upfront, people act as a safety valve rather than as accountable decision-makers. How governance determines who moves ahead Agentic AI often brings fast, early results, especially when tasks are first automated. Our survey found that many companies see these early benefits. But as autonomous systems grow, organizations often add manual checks and approval steps to manage risk. Over time, what was once simple slowly becomes more complicated. Decision-making slows down, work-arounds increase, and the benefits of automation fade. This happens not because the technology stops working, but because people never fully trust autonomous systems. This slowdown doesnt have to happen. Our survey shows a clear difference: Many organizations see early gains from autonomous AI, but those with stronger governance are much more likely to turn those gains into long-term results, such as greater efficiency and revenue growth. The key difference isnt ambition or technical skills, but being prepared. Good governance does not limit autonomy. It makes it workable by clarifying who owns decisions, how systems function is monitored, and when people should intervene. International guidance from the OECDthe Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentemphasizes this point: Accountability and human oversight need to be designed into AI systems from the start, not added later. Rather than slowing innovation, governance creates the confidence organizations need to extend autonomy instead of quietly pulling it back. The next advantage is smarter governance The next competitive advantage in AI will not come from faster adoption, but from smarter governance. As autonomous systems take on more responsibility, success will belong to organizations that clearly define ownership, oversight, and intervention from the start. In the era of agentic AI, confidence will accrue to the organizations that govern best, not simply those that adopt first. Murugan Anandarajan is a professor of decision sciences and management information systems at Drexel University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||