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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Did I see D-Cinema done wrong? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Did I see D-Cinema done wrong? Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-30-2004 10:22 PM                  Sorry to say... JFC! Joe, that's more like a "straight" thing since DLP has a much "smaller" bulb for the same screen illumination. Just exactly WTF RU smokin' over there? Yours in Christ, >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-30-2004 10:33 PM                        Hey, I didn't start "teh ghey", Thomas Procyk did. It's funny, when I was on the road with Adam and Scott, they were saying things are "gay" all the time in the exact same frame of referrence that I used it in. Lighten up people. I'm not gonna be politically correct just because you're offended. It is up to you to take it a different way than I mean it or not. PS - Phil, DLP needs a bigger bulb. Did you even read my post?  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-30-2004 10:42 PM                  Joe, I'm ***SURE*** you're NOT referring to me... It's takes a LOT more to offend me. I'm just pointing out some "truths". Just because you want to hide behind Thomas' "skirts" is NO excuse for your lack of information about bulb sizes... Yes, I did read your post... did YOU read mine? >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-30-2004 10:58 PM                     The projector was a 1.2K DLP unit. Interestingly, the theatre played its trailer pack on 35MM, then switched over to DLP for the feature. The 35MM was equally underlit and poor overall, so film done wrong was followed up with DLP done wrong (or was it film done wrong followed by DLP-done-as-well-as-possible-but-it-sucked-anyway?). By the way, during the 'brighter' scenes, the screen was revealed as being quite dirty, too. Maybe the port glass was dirty too, but by the time I saw it the show was over, so I don't know. (Doesn't this say something about the argument that DLP is set-and-forget compared to film, and that it is absolutely subject to similar negligence?) As to being acceptable to the casual observer, I suppose no-one complained, but then they didn't see the film trailers done right, either! Afterwards, when discussion over the technical merits began with my friends, I pointed out how there were no true blacks or shadow/highlight detail, and how dark it was, and they agreed, but also said that that's how the films they normally see look too! Looking at the trailer pack, I can see what they mean. Basically, if you do film extremely wrong and make the contrast as flat as a pancake, then DLP can ALMOST match it (but still can't). As to myself, I'm used to seeing things done properly, so the whole thing was totally sub-standard. Maybe on a smaller screen, DLP could look okay, but then again on a smaller screen film would look better still! I still think that resolution is only one of the problems. The other properties that film is known for also have to be matched, but can they?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-30-2004 11:13 PM                        I did read your post Phil. U sez: quote: DLP has a much "smaller" bulb for the same screen illumination. Nope. Let's say both are putting out about 12 Christopher-Lamberts of light. The screen is 45 feet wide. Mr. Film Projector will require between a 4K and 4.5K bulb to make it nice. The D-Cinema will require between a 6K and a 7K light bulb to put out the same light, ths making your statement ENTIRELY incorrect! HA!  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Fuentes Mmmm, Dr. Pepper! Posts: 1168 From: Corpus Christi, TX United States Registered: Jan 2004 posted 05-31-2004 12:15 AM                     All this arguing about bulb size is gay.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-31-2004 12:21 AM                        The proper, hip internet phrase is "teh ghey" Jeremy. Google it.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-31-2004 12:59 AM                    quote: Mattias Ohlson Cr or black level of film are not normally better than digital cinema. What is more likely to be better is perhaps shadow detail. Huh? Are you joking? The "really really dark grey" black of the digital cinema projectors I've seen can't compare to the "blacker than black" black that's possible with Kodak Vision Premier stock. Producing accurate blacks is going to be one of D cinema's biggest challenges I think.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-31-2004 01:12 AM                  Joe, as a gay bulb owner...you are smoking crack and/or that I-30 stuff! Get your story "straight"! Do your research! Gay bulbs are bigger! Ummm... but NOT for film vs. "TV" images. Errr I mean, DLP takes less watts for the same image brightness as compared to 35mm FILM! Get OFF my ASS! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-31-2004 02:00 AM                        NO IT DOESN'T! I think you need to get some of that I-30 stuff yourself. Why else would Brad choose to live by such a great highway?  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 05-31-2004 02:29 AM                     Although dlp does suck, I'd have to say Day After Tomorrow is certainly not a good reference film...My two prints of that movie are TERRIBLE! Once the attatched trailer comes on and the movie starts I get one or two complaints from customers about the focus being off when in fact it isn't. And guests at my theater never complain unless their movie didn't start. It truly is terrible, the image is quite flat and has very dull colors. But the worst part is that it just doesn't look focused...Ever.  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-31-2004 04:43 AM                     Do others have poor print quality on their prints of 'Day After Tomorrow' as well? I will go and see it at my 'reference' theatre and see what it looks like there. They have two prints.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-31-2004 05:14 AM                     Mark J. Perhaps you missed the part where I said not normally better than dlp. The film stock Kodak vision premiere is hardly used for world wide mass releases that I see or? Michael It now seems confirmed that the source itself is part of the problem and not the projector. The film is that in scope format? My question is if the theater used an anamorphic lens. If they did not they would lose light and resolution. Can you find out who many kW of light was used in the projector?  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-31-2004 05:50 AM                     I wouldn't say it was confirmed - I still have to check out my reference theatre and see what their prints look like. The other thing is that if the release prints don't look good, then that should NOT affect the quality of the DLP. Remember that DLP is supposed to alleviate variations in print quality due to the fact that release prints are NOT being struck - that is supposed to be one of its positives. I doubt that the problem can be traced back to the camera negative. The theatre was using a 4K for the 35MM film projector and a 7K for the DLP. The 4K was on its way out (it was flickering/unstable) whereas the 7K was clearly new and provided an even light. The light output of both projectors was balanced, which is to say they were both equally dim. Regarding Kodak Vision Premiere, I haven't been keeping track of all releases but it was used wonderfully for 'Minority Report', which really had BLACK blacks. Gorgeous stuff. Light output has to be a little higher than normal for this stock, though, because it is dense! Very rich contrast and grain structure.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 05-31-2004 06:14 AM                        The light output appeared even to you, but you would really have to see a white test frame to be sure. Even though digital projectors are, if not completely fire-and-forget, much less operator-dependent, they also need a minimum level of maintenance. Cleanliness of lenses and port windows are obvious points already mentioned. The lamp focus also needs to be checked after changing the lamp, and that is a bit trickier than on a 35mm projector where you can simply take the lens out and observe the anode shadow and light arc position - you can`t just take off the digital projector head! There was some experimentation with some DLP projectors whether a 6 or 7kW lamp should be used. Maybe the one you saw was originally installed with a 6kW lamp and then they switched to 7kW without properly refocusing the lamp. Another possibility is that the power supply output is incorrectly set. Since you say the "classic" projector wasn`t aligned properly, it is more than likely that the digital one was even less so. "Scope" images are usually projected with a 1.5 anamorphic lens. But like Mr Ohlson said, you can also letterbox an uncompressed scope image in the 1280x1024 frame. Then there would be a very big loss of resolution and brightness. It depends on how the projector was set up. Theoretically, there is no variation in "print" quality. But if the digital master wasn`t prepared optimally, that doesn`t help either. For instance, the digital release of "Matchstick Men" didn`t look very good at all, it was hastily done and there was even some dirt. Some suspected this was to make it look more film-like. But in reality, it just wasn`t a very successful transfer.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

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.