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 3)

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

Author Topic: Did I see D-Cinema done wrong? Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-31-2004 09:13 AM                    quote: Mattias Ohlson 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? I didn't miss it, I just respectfully disagree with it. I don't think DLP is capable of reproducing blacks anywhere near as well as film on any of the popular stocks currently used. And I don't think the best DLP can ever hope to approach the black producing ability of Vision Premier. That was my point. Others may disagree with me, and that's ok. But when someone says "the blacks weren't there" that doesn't surprise me at all because in my opinion, they never are.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 05-31-2004 09:28 AM                        Competition Is Heating Up as Projectors Go Digital By ERIC A. TAUB Published: May 31, 2004 Sony Electronics hopes that the digital projector it will demonstrate at the Digital Cinema Laboratory in Hollywood this week will become the new industry standard as movie theaters gradually shift from film to digital projection. The company says its new projector can create images with four times the resolution of the current digital projection technology, developed by Texas Instruments. Motion picture industry analysts have long predicted a shift to digital projection because using a hard disk, rather than a film projector, to serve up a movie produces a superior image. "Our new technology is the holy grail of digital projectors," said John Scarcella, president of Sony Electronics' broadcast and business solutions company. "A 4k resolution is what the industry has been waiting for. It gives the 'wow' factor that consumers want." Sony's 4k projector creates an image that is 4,096 pixels across and 2,160 high, and has four times the number of pixels delivered by Texas Instruments' 2k DLP Cinema projection chip, which projects an image 2,048 pixels across by 1,080. But shifting to any form of digital projection is expensive, and because the technology is improving quickly, movie theater owners may be hesitant to invest now when better equipment could be available soon. Moreover, it is not yet clear that improved picture quality will fuel the transition by drawing more consumers to a digital cinema. If the difference between standard film and a digitally projected print were "as great as the difference between a VHS tape and DVD, we'd have much more consumer interest in this technology," said Curtis Clark, chairman of the American Society of Cinematographer's technology committee. And Bob Gibbons, director of marketing and communications for Kodak Digital Cinema, said: "A better cinema experience is much more than just a big screen with a sharp image. It's also about how the customer is treated, how they feel when they're in the theater. It's the whole experience." Only 67 movie theaters in North America use digital projectors, all with the Texas Instruments imaging chip. Eastman Kodak, another rival, is developing its own 4k digital projector, which it expects to bring to market next year or in 2006. Texas Instruments, however, has no intention of developing a chip with 4k resolution, said Doug Darrow of the company's cinema products division. When it comes to picture quality, he said, "true-to-life colors and high picture contrast matter much more than resolution." Mr. Darrow also said that the most advanced Texas Instruments projector, which has 2k resolution, "already produces images better than the best film can do." To remind the Hollywood community of its projection accomplishments, Texas Instruments is holding its own technology demonstration at the Digital Cinema Laboratory, one day after Sony's. Projector manufacturers have subsidized the cost of installing most of the digital equipment in use in the United States today. But that will change once testing ends and projection, encryption and security standards are codified. Digital Cinema Initiatives, an industry group financed by seven motion picture studios, is evaluating technical issues and the best way to pay for the shift to digital projection. While projector prices will eventually come down, movie theaters initially may have to spend $150,000 per projector, five times the cost of conventional film projectors, which last up to 30 years. Theater owners have refused to pay for the digital conversion, arguing that the studios stand to gain the most in the switch to digital delivery. Indeed, when studios deliver digital files of films via satellite rather than by producing and shipping large reels of celluloid from theater to theater, they will save about $1,200 a print, or a total of $1.36 billion a year, according to Screen Digest, a London-based research firm. Chuck Goldwater, chief executive of Digital Cinema Initiatives, said his organization recognized that studios need to help pay for the purchase of digital projection equipment. "The proportion of financing should be relatively proportional to the benefits enjoyed by each party," he said. One proposal is for studios to contribute to a fund, in proportion to the money they save by not making prints. Those funds would then be distributed to theater owners to buy the new projectors. John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said that many questions remained to be answered, like who will get the money, when the money will be collected and the tax implications of the fund. Meanwhile, any delay in the transition to digital may be good for Sony, which stands to benefit if theater owners wait for another version of the technology.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-31-2004 10:07 AM                     quote: Joe Redifer Hey, I didn't start "teh ghey", Thomas Procyk did. NO I DIDN'T!!! You clinking, clanking, clattering, collection of colliginous JUNK!! Quit trying to get me in trouble with your LIES!!! Anyways, the most recent DLP show I saw was "Home on the Range" which I saw in film first, digital second. They were both in approx. the same sized theater, but the film screen was a bit smaller. (This was a flat movie, and the DLP screen was common-width. Go figure!) The film presentation was sharp, bright, great contrast, and vivid colors. (especially since this was animation). But the DLP presentation was nothing short of utterly disappointing. If I drove out of my way specifically to see this in DLP, I would ask for my money back. The first trailer was for "Raising Helen" -- now for DLP, they turn the house lights completely OFF for the trailers, and keep them OFF until all the credits are done -- during the dark scenes, it looked like they had the cleaning lights on! NO contrast, all the colors were washed out, and when it got to the end of the trailer where it said "Raising Helen" in powder blue on a white background, it looked almost navy-on-grey. I dismissed this as "cheap mastering of trailers" and waited for the feature, but it was the same story. I almost felt like walking up to the screen and looking underneath for the buttons to bring up the Big TV's setup menu. OTOH, "Finding Nemo" a year ago looked fantastic. So I wonder if they haven't changed the bulb. But Price is Right is on now, so I must go. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-31-2004 11:35 AM                        Digital Cinema: Coming to Eugene when hell freezes over. Yay!  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-31-2004 11:48 AM                     A quick google search shows that I'm not the only one to report my findings with DLP: ------------------------------------- 'I saw the last Star Wars Clones movie in DLP. It looked really, abominably, unforgivably bad. I was 10 rows back, the screen was large, the picture was drastically dark & underlit, & even though dark the contrast was so poor that the black masking at the side of the screen was arrestingly, distractingly darker than adjacent picture when the image was supposed to be something black. The contrast problem did not even begin to approach the resolution problem: everything was so soft that the need to run up & just focus the picture was overwhelming & added to the headache of squinting at the dark, hard to read picture. I think the dark picture & low contrast actually helped to make the low resolution less apparent to the average moviegoer. Black & white 16mm films in high school were easier to make out & better looking. DLP is not progress in theatrical image quality, it's degeneration.' ---------------------------------------------- This description exactly matches what I saw. I forgot the thing with the masking...when the masking is much, much blacker than the 'black' picture on the screen, that's just scary. It's clear that either a)If I saw a 'bad' DLP presentation, then other 'bad' presentations have taken place also (which doesn't bode well for the 'demonstration stage' of a new system - what happens when they 'stop caring'?) or b) This is the norm, and it's always this bad. Either way, this game is over before it starts, therefore can go get  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-31-2004 12:08 PM                     quote: Bevan Wright Sony's 4k projector creates an image that is 4,096 pixels across and 2,160 high, and has four times the number of pixels delivered by Texas Instruments' 2k DLP Cinema projection chip, which projects an image 2,048 pixels across by 1,080. That new 2K TI DLP chip is not commonly found. Most DLP installations are of the puny 1.2K 1280 X 1024 pixel flavor. 4K sounds cool. But do you have to replace an entire existing DLP projection system to install it? The digital projection fanboys out there have to get real for once. Cost is an extreme issue. Those guys need to come up with a simple retrofit kit that can install into most any film projector console and cut down the cost. Having to replace an entire projector for an upgrade in resolution, or a shift to a different make/model is stupid. Even still, with most film releases being 35mm only, it is unrealistic for movie theaters to add in second projectors to show video. They don't have the deep pockets to do this. Hollywood's studios have already carved enough "profit" out of their backs (or rather their fair side of the box office take) to make it tough for most theaters to even pay for regular maintenance. Any talk of paradigm-shift industry wide to video projection is pure fantasy. And this says nothing of digital projection's ability to match "film done right" (which is does not). quote: Bevan Wright Only 67 movie theaters in North America use digital projectors, all with the Texas Instruments imaging chip. Again, nearly all are of the puny 1.2K itty bitty shitty DLP chippie variety. I thought there were at least a couple JVC D/ILA installations, at least there were a few during the "Star Wars Episode I" thingie. Were the JVC installations removed? ************* It should be noted 1.2K DLP presentations tend to suck ass and look "tey ghey" when trying to show a live action 2.39:1 movie with a lot of dark imagery. "The Perfect Storm" looked pretty bad in DLP (and had lots of video compression artifacts to boot). DLP only seems to fare decently when showing brightly colorful stuff, such as a Pixar movie. But even then, with only 1280 X 1024 pixels (the evident standard of the prevailing majority of DLP installations) the detail is just too weak and "tey ghey."  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-31-2004 12:39 PM                    I wonder what the Pleasure Island AMC is running these days. The last time I was there, the manager told me that they're one of the test sites, and they rip it out and install all new stuff every couple of months or so.  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-31-2004 12:42 PM                        Hi Michael, Ive not posted on here since a little while after Hoyts fired my ass for posting here, but Im over it now. (Hmm maybe not, every now and then I think THAT sucked. To produce a forum message and say OK your FIRED. But what can you do?) Just a few questions, Where was DLP of 'Day After' at? Where is your reference theatre at? Where the hell has John gone too? Back home to MacKay? Im glad you hate VIDEO (dlp) in cinemas, because it looks as crap as you explained in the first message of this thread. But now Im getting really scared, today, I had to remove the 16mm from the MAIN to make way for a permanent place for the Barco!!! Arrrgggggggg Regards Bill.  |  IP: Logged Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 05-31-2004 12:42 PM                        2K digital projection should look better on larger screens than the 1.3k Colours should be better, with better black level's and more colours. If a 2k is set up without an anamorphic lens for Scope, you gain extra light. 1.3k is ok for up to 8m wide screens in my opinion. 2k for above. Shot on film and set up well DLP can look ok. HD shot content shown on DLP can look very good, a high quiality Video projeced image, doesn't look like film though. Prefer 35mm still, 70if they put there money into 70mm prints, no need for all this DLP expense to try match 35mm. Darren  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-31-2004 09:16 PM                     Welcome back, Bill! John Wilson is now sadly missed; he has gone back to Queensland. The DLP is in cinema # 2 at Hoyts Fox Studios. I have never enjoyed the presentation there at all, which is why I thought the DLP might actually lift their game. Wrong! My 'reference' theatre is the Randwick Ritz. Gotta love them Kinotons!!! 16-22 footlamberts in every house, and those Kintons keep that image NAILED to the screen. (Those Centurys can put out a pretty terrific image too...no question about it. But those Kinotons...and did I mention how much I love Kinotons?) Just for the record, my Film Tech picture features me standing right in front of...well, you get the idea! I hope that despite the absense of John that the others will maintain the ridiculously high standards at the Ritz. Keep that FilmGuard a-flowin', those lamps fresh, and everything will be peachy keen! As for the Barco going into your theatre...here's my suggestion. Whenever you're scheduled to run a session on it, 'accidently' thread up that 'Far and Away' 70MM trailer. When it's over, go into the cinema and say, 'Oh, sorry about that...now THIS is our movie!'. Then start the Barco... But seriously, I doubt that it will be used for much other than private hires and the like, and remember that there are still five other rooms there that need a good projectionist! If DLP comes up in meetings, just keep asking, 'So...when are we doing that 70MM retrospective?'.  |  IP: Logged Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 06-01-2004 10:40 AM                        I agree Darren - a 2k or 1k3 looks "OK" on a 9m screen. But so do my EIKIs ! Is "OK" the objective ? Surely we're looking at "as good as" as an entry point, and "better than (35mm)" as a target. There's a lot of talk that eventually Digital will be appreciably better (so much so that it will command premium admission prices) but I feel it would have to be something stunning to convince an audience.. Animation and CGI aside, where are we at ? OK, as good as or better ?  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-01-2004 02:35 PM                     Michael Barry Can you find out if the dlp showing used an anamorphic lens. Without it light output is almost half and so would resolution be at 1280x 500 something. Ideally you would want 2048x1080 pixels for the picture unless you had the chance to see a good film presentation. TI are now experimenting with pseudo 4k. The guess is that a 2k picture is double displayed offset half a pixel diagonnally. This would give you higher resolution, no pixel structure but a softening compared with digital 4k. Perhaps such a level is more what should be a minimum.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-01-2004 02:50 PM                        The resolution required is a function of the viewing magnification (number of image heights you are from the screen), not the screen size. If you sit 2 image heights from the screen, the required sharpness is the same whether you are 20 feet from a 10 x 24 foot screen, or 60 feet from a 30 x 72 foot screen. You can reduce the lumen output for a smaller screen, but NOT the resolution.  |  IP: Logged Andy Muirhead Master Film Handler Posts: 323 From: Galashiels, Scotland Registered: Dec 2000 posted 06-01-2004 06:36 PM                     I'll just chip in here, and agree that Day After Tomorrow is not a great reference print, If my print is anything to go by. It certainly is soft focus, and not very bright, in fact very grey looking. I know it's the print as just put a new bulb in, and the next day Harry Potter was running in the same screen, looking fantastic and bright. The print that is, not the small boy wizard. I think my print of Day After Tomorrow is definately a bit gay.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-03-2004 06:54 AM                     Another impression of Day after tomorrow found at avsforum. "I saw TDAT at the Uptown in DC, supposedly our premiere movie house. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. It was a dark, colorless image with poor contrast and so-so-focus. This is the UPTOWN, folks. My days at the public movie houses is at its end . . ." This movie´s mastering seems like the worst in a long time or?  |  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.