my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Dolby Talks About Dim 3D (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Dolby Talks About Dim 3D Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-22-2011 12:36 AM                        Geez, Brad! Was the screen hot when you turned that thing off?  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 07-22-2011 01:25 AM                     I was at the presentation in San Francisco last week. Not only was it quite informative and well attended by some of the better projectionists in the Bay Area, it was truly non-brand specific. They knew quite a bit about the RealD, XPand, Technicolor 3D on film and other 3D systems, and about Barcos, Christies, Sonys and other digital projectors, and at no time was there ever a pitch for their specific product. The only people who would poo-poo the seminar are those who were not there. On a side note, not only did I get to meet a certain someone who spearheaded the introduction of many of Dolby's breakthrough audio formats -- from Dolby Stereo in 1974 to Dolby SR in 1986 and Dolby Digital in 1992 -- but for some reason cannot be mentioned by name in the post without getting an error message (an incredible personal thrill, by the way), I got in to a very good discussion with one of the Dolby techs (I won't say who, but it wasn't the gentleman alluded to before) about the possibility of reintroducing the Left Center and Right Center channels back in to the matrix, and they said they could see it happening in the next few years.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-22-2011 01:30 AM                     quote: Ken Lackner Aside from the different cathode pin, what is the difference between a lamp for film and a lamp for digital? different internal structure for digital requirements, including more xenon pressure, structure in the contact developments for longer luminance output, complient for the glass reflector, et.al. to drive the prices higher for digital usage than for cinema usage. It can be a bit crazy as such. ... - Monte  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-22-2011 02:43 AM                        OK, so if some digital systems can reach 20FtLmbts, then it goes back to my conclusion that given the continuing complaints about poor light performance can ONLY mean that the orginal 2D installs simply aren't designed for the light demands of adding 3D filters and alternating frame rates. Obviously systems that wind up only being able to deliver 3.5 foot lamberts for 3D are wowfully inadaquate for decently bright 3D presentation; these systems will not be delivering presentations that will be pleasing to most audiences. Problem is, no one seems to be admitting this. The lame attempt to blame exhibitors by diverting attention from the real issue --the BIG mistake olf allowing 3D to be presented on digital systems capable of delivering a sub-SUB par brightness levels that come nowhere near that of good 2D. Until 3D can be presented the way IMAX does or perhaps with the kinds of setups like Brad has demonstrated possible, then 3D will die a slow death as people get fed up with dim, underlit 3D screens and be expected to pay extra for it. And as I said, no amount of futzing around with lamp amperage and lamp longevity and keeping the port glass clean are going to fix how a 5.5 foot lambert (or even less) image is going to be perceived by an audience.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 07-22-2011 05:21 AM                     Frank, a question... Let's say I have a RealD-capable auditorium. Let's call it House 1 for simplicity's sake. And let's say this one week in July, I am playing The Last Airbender in 3D in House 1. It is dark and murky, and one can barely tell it's in 3D. And then let's say the following week, I play Despicable Me in 3D in House 1. But without making a single adjustment, I had a beautiful and bright picture, where the 3D vividly pops off the screen. Same projector, same xenon lamp, same foot lambert setting. Absolutely zero changes. I haven't even moved the XL unit a single millimeter. So why is one movie dark and murky and the other beautiful and bright? I already know the answer, by the way. I was there. I'm curious to hear your response.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-22-2011 05:37 PM                        ?? -- A million things can go wrong. If your system is working fine with one digital print but another comes is and it looks like crap, while it could be something gone off in your system, the fastest way to trouble-shoot it would be to play some test material and see if your image is, as you say, beautiful and bright, then it becomes clear the Dprint is suspect. If you are sure you've set everything correctly, then get it replaced just the same way you would get a reel that had unacceptable image problems replaced. But what's the point? This issue here is that instead of saying 3D presentation in projectors which are not able to hit well-established specs set for acceptable image brightness are unacceptable, they are just saying whatever levels they can reach ARE the specs. That's like going shooting practice and to be sure you hit the target, you shoot first and then call whatever you hit the target. To me, this is bogus practice and is the reason people are getting seriously critical of 3D presentation, execpt for systems that DO reach established, acceptable brightness levels for their 3D, like IMAX, and I take it some some well-designed installs that do reach much higher brightness levels that this idiotic "acceptable" 3.5 FtLamberts.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 07-22-2011 06:05 PM                     Some films have bright and pretty photography which lends itself to fooling your eyes that the spec is very good but the truth is. It is... Is not very good.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-22-2011 07:22 PM                     quote: Frank Angel the fastest way to trouble-shoot it would be to play some test material and see if your image is, as you say, beautiful and bright, then it becomes clear the Dprint is suspect. If you are sure you've set everything correctly, then get it replaced just the same way you would get a reel that had unacceptable image problems replaced. But what's the point? That is speaking out of ignorance and is nowhere near true. Frank, I know you hate digital cinema, but please don't make stuff up.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-22-2011 07:49 PM                        Brad, please don't keep saying that because it simply is not true. I DON'T hate digital and as my post in just this one thread keeps saying, I think IMAX makes 3D look spectacular, and they are doing that with TWO digital projectors. As for what you are quoting, I was responding to a question asked about what would be the reason, in a digital system that has been producing bright and beautiful images, that all of a sudden one title would look dull and dark. Read the question. Edward asked what would cause that. He is talking about digital. All I said was, it could simply be a badly authored hard drive and it should be returned for a replacement just like you would return a bad film reel of a feature. This makes me hate digital? In fact, what I am saying through every post here is that I think 2D digital has as quite acceptable brightness as good as film -- in many systems even better, but 3D often falls short because of the way it has been added to systems that cannot produce the brightness level necessary. How does that make me hate digital? We just ran WEST SIDE STORY to 4500 people in the park last night. Christie 15KW DIGITAL projector. It was a great success.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-22-2011 11:16 PM                     Aren't the master or printing negatives just simply scanned to be made for DCI usage?  |  IP: Logged Edward Jurich Master Film Handler Posts: 305 From: Las Vegas USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 09-09-2011 12:31 AM                     Went to see a 3D at the Regal multiplex near Hampden and I25 in Denver. Picture was so dim I actually took the glasses off several times so I could see it better. Sound was crap also, loud enough to hurt my ears but mostly booming bass and midrange, no high end to speak of (could be the kids in the booth blew the horns ). I am not fond of the digital look so when I can't find a real movie theater I'll invest in a good video projector and watch DVD's at home.  |  IP: Logged Jake Spell Master Film Handler Posts: 294 From: Johns Island SC Registered: May 2009 posted 09-09-2011 08:36 PM                     So what was the answer to Edward's question? What made the two movies look so different?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.