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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » When will we see 4k dlp from TI? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: When will we see 4k dlp from TI? Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 11-03-2003 11:13 AM                     I am trying to get a grip on how this business work. The answer is mostly it can not work in any other way than what it does today. I think it is the case already today that people only go to the theater for very special movies, all the other movies many wait for the dvd release. The quality you can get at home is better every day. Most people can afford the sound part of ht but not the video side. People will come to expect more of both sound and vision in the future. Even though the movie experience at a theater can be vastly superior it is not always the case. Do you want any changes? If so what changes? Would you want 5-70 at 30fps if there was a business model to support it? I understand it has not been possible before possibly beacuse the pressure to change was not big enough. Do any studios or theater owners see investment and change as a way to improve business compared no change a cost savings.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 11-03-2003 01:22 PM                     DP=Director of Photography  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-03-2003 02:16 PM                        The movie industry is being dragged into the same realities that we have seen in the computer industry for years. Technology changes rapidly and investments made today are eclipsed by investments made tomorrow. The replacement of film and its manual processes is much like the replacement of paper in the office and its manual processes. Digital Cinema, IMO, will bring many, many improvements to the whole process flow. Are there high initial costs? Will the equipment purchased today be made seemingly obsolete a year from now? Yes, just like there are high costs to purchasing the bleeding edge computer equipment. I would be very surprised if the new 2k units and the original 1k units can't play the same files, so the 1k units will not be going on the garbage heap any time soon. They'll be passed down to other screens in the same location, other locations in the same chain, or sold as used equipment. My d-cinema experience is limited to 1k DLP systems, and in my experience, those presentations matched or exceeded the picture quality of 35mm presentations in local theaters. I would imagine that 2k systems would fare even better. That's really what the industry should be concerned about, and what the bar should be for theaters considering moving to d-cinema. We can sit here and talk about the virtues of all the existing film formats, but the reality is that these formats have been around for years and have been passed over or ignored. (I happen to agree that 70mm should be very common. Far and Away was incredible and made a big impression on me, and 70mm presentations at classic theaters of Ben-Hur, etc. are also very good, considering the age of the prints and the setups of the theaters. But no major films have been shot in 70mm in how long?) Initial capital investment aside, d-cinema should provide plenty of improvements to the costs and effort involved in the process flow of creating and presenting movies. Case in point: Once Upon a Time in Mexico Budget: $29M U.S. Gross: $55.8M Producer/director/screenwriter/DP/editor: Robert Rodriguez Robert Rodriguez is making art his own way, largely because digital cinema technology allows him to. Film isn't the art, neither is any other canvas available to the artists. Likewise, the art of the presentation shouldn't be tied solely to the canvas. If we get too hung up on that, we're not paying attention to the other areas of the movie-going experience. I say don't wait for some unseen and undeveloped technology to be developed and sold at some hoped-for price. Find out about this technology now, and see if it makes sense for your theaters. See if you can bring in a demo unit or visit a theater that has an installation and talk to the staff and the patrons about their experiences. The wonderful thing about the continuous march of the technology industry is that everything is getting better and cheaper. Just like with computer equipment, how long are theaters going to stand on the sidelines, waiting to jump in and reap the benefits available? There is money to be saved in waiting for the performance to go up and the prices to come down. But there are also opportunities lost by waiting.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-03-2003 02:19 PM                        There certainly are business models being explored to make experiencing feature films in a theatre on a huge screen even more special. Large formats (70mm prints) are usually part of the picture, but not higher frame rates. http://www.vasc.org/images/IMAX/DMR.pdf http://www.in70mm.com/lists/various/imax_dmr.htm http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20021011/ http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/casestudies/imax.pdf http://www.boxoff.com/shows/showest/2003/imax.html http://www.bigscreenmovies.com/ImaxMatters/LansingAnnounce.htm http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/2001/66/lfca/lfca_debate.htm http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/?uniq=84 And 65mm origination is alive and well in the large format industry Unfortunately, not yet for feature-length films. But Disney's "Young Black Stallion" comes close. : http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/movies/coming_soon.html?uniq=307  |  IP: Logged Paul Konen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 981 From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-03-2003 04:46 PM                     Yes, the 1K / 2K chip will play the same data feed. Paul  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-03-2003 09:27 PM                        The actual resolution required to present an acceptable image depends on the viewing distance relative to image size. In other words, you need the same high resolution viewing a 10 x 24 foot image from 20 feet, as you do for a 30 x 72 foot image from 60 feet. Of course, the larger image requires a projector with 9 times the light output, all else being equal. A lower resolution projector is workable only if you view the image from a greater distance relative to image size. So if you want to provide a large-appearing image, you can't scrimp on the number of pixels.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 11-04-2003 12:48 AM                     Thanks for the links Mr Pytlak I know that the manufacturers of d-cinema projectors state what kind of light output they are capable of on a certain size screen. They give this measurement in ftL. However can someone comment on the light output in ANSI lumen of the light system in various 35mm projectors? I would like to get a feeling for how much light they generate compared to each other.  |  IP: Logged Bevan Wright Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 11-04-2003 07:50 AM                        The new 2k DLP systems are nearly twice as efficient as the previous generation 1.3k systems. This is due to the 12 degree mirrors, improved optics, larger apertures, and shorter arc lamps. 18-22k lumens are very much possible now. Modern, well maintained film systems are typically in the 3-4.5 lumens per watt efficiency range with 'standard' arc Xenon lamps. [Efficiency decreases with increasing lamp arc gap size.] A 6kW film system tops out at about 18k lumens, limited by critical film temperatures.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 11-04-2003 08:30 AM                     The Barco DP100 2K resolution Digital projector with a 7kw bulb outputs 18000 Lumens.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-04-2003 09:21 AM                        Yes, shorter arc gaps (smaller plasma) help improve collection efficiency. What is the experience with shorter gap lamps as compared to "standard arc" lamps with regards to electrode life and lamp focus stability? What are the specs (gap, rated life) for the 7K lamp used in the Barco DP100? Are there multiple vendors? Can it be used in film lamphouses?  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 11-04-2003 09:39 AM                     The bulb is a short gap arc and the positive end of the bulb has no metal fitting since it is supported by the negative power + heat sink fitting. There will be two vendors for the bulb. The basic stock bulb is a XBO 6KW/HP OFR bulb with a 500 hour warantee.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-04-2003 09:43 AM                        Thanks.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-04-2003 01:54 PM                     quote: I am trying to get a grip on how this business work. The answer is mostly it can not work in any other way than what it does today. Lethargy is unfortunate factor in the exhibition business. Even the smallest improvements (such as 6000' reels) are often met with industry wide resistance. I would like to see 48fps in movies, but that would only be confined to special venue systems. The thing that kills it for regular movie theaters is booth space. Some booths have a comfortable amount of space while others are downright cramped. A 2 hour movie at 48fps may not fit on a normal platter. Most theaters will not go to the expense of replacing standard platter systems with much larger units. And a lot of booths simply do not have the space to manage it. Even in this regard a more modest improvement like 30fps would be tough to sell when you have movies like "Return of the King" eclipsing 3.5 hours. 65mm/70mm is something that is easily justifiable and there is a definite business model for it. It is all over this factor: quote: The movie industry is being dragged into the same realities that we have seen in the computer industry for years. Digital storage/presentation formats rapidly change. Very often analog source material is the only thing that can gracefully adapt to a more sophisticated digital presentation system. That's simply why 65mm/70mm would work far better as a preferred originating format for shooting big budget films. A movie that was shot on video is hopelessly locked in its electronically created level of resolution. The last time I checked, "Epidose II" was not available on D-VHS unlike a lot of other Fox films (the studio is even releasing new D-VHS versions of "Speed," "True Lies" and "Moulin Rouge" with DD and DTS at their highest available bitrates). "Episode II" might not even hold up to D-VHS specs much less stand up to some kind of D-Cinema format to be created a few years from now. But 70mm can do it. It has the natural analog resolution to stand up to any 4K system, or even 8K and 16K. There still is a pretty good amount of 70mm infrastructure left in existence. Strong Int'l still makes some Century projector models that play both 35mm and 70mm film. You can fit 70mm capability within the confines of most booths. One also doesn't necessarily have to go to the trouble of doing an IMAX DMR process (as used on "Apollo 13" and "Matrix Reloaded"). A normal 5/70 blowup would have sufficed for that. Most IMAX theaters are not set up to run 5/70 however. But a 35/70 projector running a 5/70 print would be a far better alternative than doing the current and stupid practice of showing 4/35 movie prints on IMAX screens.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-04-2003 03:35 PM                        And as mentioned earlier, Kodak still makes lots of 65mm and 70mm motion-picture film, and there are multiple (but not alot of) labs that can process and print it worldwide.  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 11-04-2003 04:55 PM                     I believe IMAX screens and other very large screens are too big. It would be better to let whatever resolution work on smaller screen. A similar viewing angle can be maintained with a smaller screen. Not really counting IMAX, too involving? I agree that it makes sense to have an analog original for storage and as a starting point. What this will be in the future it is difficult to say. What do you think. 4-35 , 8-35 , 65mm or other? If the negative resolution of a full 4-35 is just south of 5k. If you scan this at 6k you get all the detail. Then work through and display 4k digital will not that be a very good picture quality. Compare this to 65mm with a capacity south of 10k? This negative might be limited be the lens in aquisition, then you lose some in two copy stages and then some more again when projected. Perhaps this is not much better than the scenario above unless something very special happans in the aquisition with 65mm.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.