Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: D-cinema...what is everyone thinking???

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » D-cinema...what is everyone thinking??? (Page 6)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: D-cinema...what is everyone thinking???

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-01-2006 11:21 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
In my earlier comments about "Monster House" in Real D, I mentioned the uneven screen illumination, and the "blotchy" look of the screen. In other words, Cinemark apparently didn't go the whole nine yards in this upgrade to D-Cinema. The flat silver screen should probably be curved, and the screen material is probably either improperly installed, or it's defective and should be replaced. THAT is worth some criticism. Will that be the pattern for D-Cinema conversions? Do it 80% but not the full 100%? Sounds like a continuation of the same "just get an image on the screen and sound coming from the speakers" syndrome.

Most likely that was probably one of the last minute installs. They added a few at the last minute. By chance did some of that splotching look like it was coming from the center portion of the screen around where the speakers would be placed. They could have some speaker horns actually touching the back of the screen causing this effect. You are also going to have keystone issues with the light pattern on systems that are not in perfect relation to the screen. I had this problem years ago when you tried to align the bulb for even light you had to run down to the auditorium to make sure the light looked even from the center of the auditorium.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-01-2006 11:52 AM

The blotchy thing, kind of resembling waterstains, was over most of the screen.

I can understand it might have been a rush job, but rush jobs usually mean cutting some corners and sometimes those corners never get properly fixed. In fairness, it's possible they fully intend to correct the screen problem at some point, but all I can tell you is what I saw.

One thing I noticed is they must have done some digital keystone correction on the projector. The black bars on flat trailers were perfectly vertical, no keystoning at all, and the scope image seemed to fit the screen masking perfectly.

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 08-01-2006 12:27 PM

Tight blotchy "water like" splatter if not caused by rubbing the surface when installing, can also be poor spray coating of silver or spraying under less than ideal temperture / humidity conditions. Some screens are manufactured from pre-silvered material....their issues are sometimes poor matching of reflective surfaces when sewing or welding the sections that make up the screen. Silver is also hard to clean, especially if there is ice cream, soda or Gummi Bears on the surface [Wink]

I remember six years ago going to an eight-plex with four silver screens. The Theater owner was complaining about his bad lenses when in fact it was bad surfaces [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-01-2006 02:10 PM

The troubling thing for me with this rush for the movie industry to adopt something just "good enough," even moving to originate movies in that "good enough" 2K format (rather than shooting on film) is they're not bothering to think about how this will play in the long term.

Those movie industry executives are simply assuming their industry will always be around. They're assuming they'll always have their jobs, regardless of any mistakes or how far the work to actually downgrade the true quality of the product. They're assuming people will always buy it regardless of any shortcomings.

Here's a little news flash for them: when you deal in digital technology and base your product in digital technology, change is the only constant and the future is absolutely UNPREDICTABLE.

Worse yet, with the product being digital it will be even more vulernable to paradigm shifts happening in computer technology, home theater, gaming, music and lots of other stuff. At least with film origination and film projection commercial theaters had a completely separate paradigm of medium. Not any longer.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Thats definately an uneducated assumption. All 17 of us agreed that the D-Cinema trailers we saw looked more 70mmish than flat aspect ratio film ever has. If you've ever seen how good dailies can look thats exactly what it looked like. Go take a class before making any more assumptions.

Mark, Josh is right and his stance at least concerning radio is an educated, experienced one.

HD Digital Radio is indeed a lower quality solution parading itself as something superior. It's right there in the damned name, "HD!" As I said before, it is a good example of what's wrong in marketing various kinds of digital audio and video formats. The sales guys give the customers something of lesser value, but then proclaim it to be perfect at the same time. That is the only idea behind repeating that honestly useless "digital" buzzword.

True CD quality audio is 16-bit 44.1kHz 2.0 channel audio at 1.411 million bits per second. Unless you are losslessly compressing that data at no more than a 2:1 ratio, it is NOT CD quality. Period.

The age of downloading music has allowed various liars in sales jobs to tout MP3 files lossy compressed to 192kb/s as being "CD quality." Apple sells most of its 99 cent AAC iTunes files at a mere 128kb/s bit rate.

Sirius and XM satellite radio sends out its broadcasts typically at 96kb/s using MPEG compression. The squashed bitrate shows in the brittle audio quality. But Sirius and XM did more to tout their variety of music, lack of commercial interruption and coverage in remote areas than claiming it sounded better than regular radio.

HD Digital Radio drops quality further to cram in more channel capability within some very limited broadcast spectrum. They're using a "PAC" codec, which like Josh says is backed by that Ibiquity investment group. That's in spite of MPEG and AAC standards being far more proven. Cameron University here in Lawton is broadcasting two HD Digital Radio stations on top of their existing analog signal. The first one runs at an optional 96kb/s bitrate, but may be dumped to 64kb/s. There is even a provision for it to run at 32kb/s. But since it's still "digital" they'll probably keep saying it's better than anything analog.

Just how far do you have to compress, degrade and downsample a digital audio or video stream before the sales assholes will finally admit it isn't as good as the old analog format it intends to replace?

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-01-2006 03:45 PM

How does anyone here know what the deciders (heh) at Regal, AMC, Cinemark, etc. are thinking with regard to the long-term viability of 2K? I mean, come on, do you really think they're not considering where the industry will be in 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years? Not to be argumentative, but it's completely bogus to state as fact that they haven't taken any of those issues into consideration. I mean, the truth is, they know all that, yet they're doing this anyway. As fragile as the exhibition business seems to be, would they embark on a risky and expensive new technology like this without being confident that it's the right thing to do in the long run? I don't think so.

'Course, we'll all know in 10 years whether they made the right decisions now.

As far as Mark's opinions, he was there. Nobody else here was there at the same time as Mark (that I'm aware of; Josh says he's seen Dolby demos, but apparently not the same ones as Mark. Josh, were the demos you saw in the same physical location as Mark saw it, same equipment, etc?). If Mark says it was 70mm-ish, why would I doubt him? (Of course, he may have a vested interest in selling the new technology... Or maybe Dolby put something in everyone's catered lunch... Hmmm... [Wink]

just kidding Mark, although it does really sound like you've done a 180 on D-Cinema. [Smile]

)

Does anyone here know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-01-2006 06:25 PM

Right now the hot word in the industry is "digital cinema". Any way you slice it, that title is selling more tickets than the "non-digital" equivalent auditoriums. Of course the same was the case with 70mm, when digital sound was new and when THX really meant something. Once most of the industry has converted to D-cinema, it will be nothing that can really be used to advertise to get people to patronize a particular theater.

Josh and I were in the Dolby screening room, the same place Mark was, and I'll just bet it was the same Barco projector too. I do know it was a 2K system we saw, but again the 2K demo we saw at Christie 2 days later (with the same content) looked better to the both of us. It's quite possible something was amiss with that particular projector and has since been fixed, but still you see my point.

Sorry Mark, but with the way you praise one product and bash another, then "flip sides" and start bashing the product you used to think was the only one worth using, I find it hard to take these comments 100% seriously. In reading your posts over the last couple of years, you seem to change your mind too much on things. Your recent excitement with D-cinema just seems all too similar to those self-help seminar scams where people go to them, get all pumped up and excited, then a couple of months later wake up from their brain coma to realize it was all bullshit. [Wink]

Mark's excitement over D-cinema also smells a lot like a type of brainwashing I recall back many years ago at Cinemark. My favorite example which still gets laughs today was when I was opening a new location and some of the prints we were to open with were going to be used. The GM walked into the booth and said "we will be getting our second copy of that movie from X theater". My response "I hope the print will be good." Brainwashed manager's response "of course it will be a good print. It is coming from a CINEMARK theater and ALL Cinemarks have perfect, flawless presentations." I just smiled and said "thanks for the info". The print was fair at best, but when I pointed it out to him on-screen he thought it looked magnificent. I wonder if Mark got himself a little "brainwashing" action/pep talk combo. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-01-2006 07:46 PM

I'm not sure it is brainwashing...DCinema really does present itself very well on first glance. Even the 1.3K stuff sent shivers down my spine when I first saw it...from the booth it still looks pretty impressive.

The problem with it is as one sees its flaws, you start to notice them more and more (the same is true with film)...To claim 2K has a 70mmish look to is absurd though...I wonder how long it has been since seeing a good 70mm image. You see a 70mm image on a 40-foot wides screen and it almost has a 3D quality to it (run it at 60fps and it DOES have a 3D quality to it).

But having spend a week with DCinema does not an expert make. I'm around it a fair amount of time and it is just "media" to me.

Is 2K DCinema good enough for some...you bet...there some theatres that NEVER need to go beyond it.

However, this really is 2nd generation beta equipment.

I can not see a good business reason to jump on it at this stage...techncially it has something to offer to many (it will be an improvement) but to many it offers a downgrade. Financially it is very stupid at the moment. Long-term reliability and support are quite suspect (not from Dolby per-say, their track record of support give DCinema credibility where others dont).

The fact of the matter is, I can take a projection system that is 20% as expensive and put out a superior image and it will last 10-times as long and cost a fraction for each year of ownership.

If they need a system to wow the consumer that they can't get at home...forget 3D and digital...its 70mm...it has always delivered and it is the State-of-the-Art. The cost to the exhibitor has never been cheaper and the cost to run is zero dollars more.

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08-01-2006 08:11 PM

As brad said, I was at the same demo he was.

On a side note, and I appologize for the thread hijack, HD radio stuff. If you check out the audio samples on Ibiquity's website , in several of the examples, aside from the simulated multipath distortion, you cannot actually tell the difference between the two. The whole selling point early on is that HD would offer all of us a relaxed, less processed copy of the analog audio. But the loudness wars rage on, and with it is lost any hope of HD as a better sounding alternative. Before we had harmonic distorion from the distortion cancelled clippers in the processor, now we have intermodulation distortion instead, as modern codecs do not like clipped audio, we are now using look-ahead limiting to control modulation and loudness.

So we can rule out improved audio quality as a benefit, the only thing left as others have pointed out is more internet quality channels that like the main channel feature canned music, cheesy as hell DJ's, and hopefully some shred of local content. Its getting pretty sad up here when I can hear the same satellite country format on 6 stations with a good antenna.

From pubic servant to public nuscance....

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-01-2006 08:36 PM

The program content and highest quality presentation of which is what matters.

But that's all lost on those suits. They think they can con everyone else with some lesser system while proclaiming their new thing is better. It's one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of things.

True 65mm photographed movies on 70mm film still remains the absolute high point on movie production and presentation technology. Its capability is far and away superior to any of this HDTV quality stuff. But it's analog and that's just too icky for those sales droids out there.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-01-2006 08:55 PM

I recall when people replaced their $80 turntable with the new $400 CD player and marvelled at the improvement.

CDs do sound great and they are more convenient.

However, the domestic market is a different animal to the commercial operation. What makes people willing to leave their comfortable homes and plonk money down on your ticket counter?

If DC cost the same as film projection equipment (capital and running costs), the argument would be different.

Convenience of operation is of no concern to our customers. Otherwise they wouldn’t bring their kids along to trash our theatres.

Given a choice, if the industry wants to make my work easier with digital projection or make it a bitharder with 70mm prints, I would go for the latter without blinking. Or an improved 35mm format for that matter.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2006 09:24 PM

quote: Ron Curran
However, the domestic market is a different animal to the commercial operation. What makes people willing to leave their comfortable homes and plonk money down on your ticket counter?

Humm, CD's found their way into commercial arenas, radio, TV, etc.very quickly... within a year in fact after they were introduced.

I would say too that I do prefer film way over digital... One has to be realistic about the whole picture and its a fact that the advent of digital has killed any possibilities of any 65/70mm stuff ever being done again on a large scale. And a new 35mm format... that'll be the day... those came and left us long ago with just about every avenue having been explored on that frontier. I guess I just like to embrace new technology as it comes along and as its available to the markets, there is no reason not to as long as it is in a situation that makes sense. I agree with everyopne that until a sound financial plan comes along its not going to happen. Tne likes of Christie and Gort will end up ruling the industry and thats alot worse than any other aspect of DC itself.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-01-2006 10:34 PM

To use a different analogy, the movie industry has a declining level of professional standards when it comes to the production and presentation of the end product. They're blinded by that "digital" word. Or using that "digital" word to try to blind everyone else so they can get away with whatever con job they're trying to run.

Look at it in terms of still imagery publication by comparison.

Even though digital cameras are all the rage, most of the high end still photography being done for things like magazine covers, coffee table books, calendars, etc. is being done using analog view cameras. Granted, some of these photographers have highly expensive digital backs for these devices for quick and dirty stuff. But they're still using the tried and true analog chromes for the best quality output.

The graphics industry has been diminshed by "digital" for all the rampant lack of professionalism that has infected workflows, especially here in the United States. I pull no punches at all in saying anyone who designs logos using Photoshop is a dumb fuck idiot who is only costing his customers money. When they need the logo done right in vector format for something like a large scale sign, I'm going to charge those customers a hefty fee to do the job right and then tell them, "hire someone who has a clue next time you need a logo designed."

In my field of work, the whole "digital" thing has allowed a lot of no-talent idiots to con their way into the field when they wouldn't have been able to manage it when everything was done in the "analog" way. I've never heard of anyone waking up one morning and thinking, "wow, I'm going to go buy an oil painting kit and instantly paint like Rembrandt!" But many think if they download a copy of Photoshop that makes them magically on par with anyone doing graphics work.

This bullshit, dumbassed "digital" fuck-tard word just causes all kinds of hair-brained issues for lots of people. For some twisted reason 99% of the folks out there allow their brains to go on autopilot the second they find out a computer is involved in the product they're about to buy or experience. They can't be bothered to look a little farther to see if they're getting screwed.

Whatever happened to raising the standards bar to a new level?

I contend the era between the 1950s and 1970s was the last great era in defining high standards for film production and exhibition. With the sole exception of the introduction of digital surround sound, pretty much every other "high water mark" on movie quality was defined in that long past 20 year period. We had everything from the birth of Cinerama, Todd-AO and IMAX in that time span. 70mm Dolby Mag was born during that time.

The only things we've seen since then which have truly improved the movie going experience was the arrival of Dolby SR mag at the end of 1986 and uncompressed discrete surround audio as part of D-Cinema in 1999. Those two points are fairly minor with the other developments that happened between the 50's and 70's.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-01-2006 11:13 PM

Bobby, you are confirming what I observed earlier. Kids being given gadgets to make “artists” of them. One other myster for me is that I used to be able to get material to a metro paper a daybefore in the bad old days; now they have to have a file about 4 days ahead.

Anyway, the reason film presentation advancement has been resisted or stalled is because, last century, we were promised that digital would replace film before we woke up next morning.

Thank heavens that Kodak and Fuji are still investing in film r & d.

Our little cinema was the first in our region to get 4 track mag, DTS, Dolby Digital and digital pre-show. So don’t accuse me of being a Luddite. Although I did resist the last wave of 3D. But I am in no rush to grab this 2k toy. It isn’t feasible at this stage.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2006 11:59 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
tell them, "hire someone who has a clue next time you need a logo designed."

I hope you don't really talk like that to clients. Even if they do some dumb-ass thing, they are the ones with the money.

You know what really ticks me off is all these amateur people who keep buying these "home theatre" systems so they can play "movies" (which are really nothing more than TV, you know) in their freaking homes. WE are the professional entertainers. We run the REAL theatres. What business do these non-professional dorks have trampling on OUR territory? I think this problem is far worse than the people with the downloaded copies of Photoshop. [Wink]

Or maybe these people have the misguided notion that they can get something that's nearly as good (or in their warped minds, better) for "less" money.

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 08-02-2006 01:36 AM

So what? I havent seen anything on the screen in a year and a half that I actually wanted to see. I demand new material damnit!

JJ

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.