yet, 35mm is unbeatable, if fresh copy is used, for real films.

also, isn't the laser techology the real stuff??

but hey, TI got majors by the balls with super strict contracts anyway..... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I would say 3DLP is great for large home theaters, 15-20ft screens, with SDI connections.

IMHO, current Digital Cinema looks best with animation and CGI, where resolution is not an issue, and the colors are computer-generated. Pixel visibility and "jaggies" are issues when you sit close to the screen.

Be skeptical of "contrast ratio" specifications -- usually they are measured totally "on" (white) vs. "off" (black), so the black level measurement is without any other light going through the optical system, and therefore unrealistic. The effect of optical flare in the system is being ignored. By that measure, a Kodak VISION Premier print would have a contrast ratio of over 10000:1! Flare in the optical system cannot be ignored, and there are lots of optics in a digital projector.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

John Pytlak wrote:
IMHO, current Digital Cinema looks best with animation and CGI, where resolution is not an issue...

---

I agree that current digital cinema is best suited to showing computer animation, but I still think resolution is an issue in such cases. Most feature film computer work is done at or near "2K" resolution, but since DLP is currently limited to only 1280x1024, it cannot display every last pixel of a 2K image. It's true that DLP will avoid the addition of analog noise that comes from printing to film, but what good does that do if DLP can't display all the pixels?

On the other hand, outputting digital work to film with a laser recorder will preserve all the pixels. Even if there is a chance of introducing some slight analog artifacts, I still think that's better than scaling the images down for DLP. Plus, there's no lossy video compression to worry about, which is a problem with current digital equipment.

I've looked all over, and I can't find any information about the exact resolution "Final Fantasy" was rendered at. In fact, information about the resolution of nearly any CG work these days is very hard to come by. I wonder if they are being secretive about it in order to discourage people from speculating about the very things I discuss in the above paragraphs...

 |  IP: Logged

I myself like what the technology has achieved. although not perfect by all means(prefer a 70mm Dolby mag print viewed on a traditional 12:1 seating slope<hate stadium seating> ) it is solid and at least we know if we go the digital route with the TI machine we can expect an "X" amount of quality that will only get better with time......
Anybody get a look at the Qualcomm machine say around Entertech Seminar of '99?
Black, contrast? haha! The black was purple for one, and well the rest will go unmentioned but it was a fifteen foot image to be presented alongside the TI presentation's fifteen foot image. The TI guys had their machine on a plastic rack container----->easy out install/ boom your on screen. The Qualcomm guys brought a huge plastic Pelican Case Crate. It took them two days to get the picture "just right" with all black...i mean purple...and the rest. When show time came to....the right hand side TI image had a pretty good, in my opinion, presentation for being my first digital cinema viewing. It was clear, steady, bright, colorful(although the red seemed a bit exaggerated)focus immpecable, yet it wasn't what I call "liquid". A 45 foot screen, 4k bulb, 3 bladed shutter makes a liquid presentation. the movie stands out! The qualcomm presentation never came through....i guess the engineers didn't want to make it obvious whose technology was superior so they scrapped their viewing. hehe well there you go!!! a little history on the birth of Digital Cinema! We've come a long way and it will take time for God's sake. Give it the time it needs and only exibiting what existing technology available like the TI DLP machine and the Quvit Digital storage unit and show it off to the public will gain more confidence in the technology and demand for more and better! Will we achieve 4k x 4k film quality picture in the future?....I think so. Lasers? mentioned in an earlier post....the day will come.
John P? agree with achieving 4k x 4k someday?

I love you guys!

The one thing nobody considers... a good projectionist is still a necessary component to a quality presentation in Digital Cinema as well. At THX, we did the Digital Cinema releases for Episode 1, Titan A.E., Akira, Shrek (recently), and Jurassic Park 3 (presently). And I hate to say this, but Digital Cinema has come a long way baby. It really looks better, and if the Theatre and equipment are properly maintained (sounds a lot like 35mm, doesn't it), it really does rival the best film presentations. JP3 is playing at 10 sites Digitally, check it out...

And so you all don't hate me... I run TAP. We survive off of 35mm film. Yet, I am welcoming the Digital world because, and you can quote me on this, "We'll all be dead before 35mm is obsolete." At best, when all the digital dust settles, we'll all be working with dual inventories, and trust me... Digital Cinema is not like a VCR. You don't just press play... or our Techs wouldn't be spending 15 hours or more at each site.

Anyway, it does look good. And with the right technical support, like 35mm film, it will look great.

THXfully Yours,

quote:

---

Roy Burke wrote:
it is solid and at least we know if we go the digital route with the TI machine we can expect an "X" amount of quality that will only get better with time......

---

I'm curious as to why you say it will get better over time. Unless theaters install new projectors on a regular basis, the resolution and other parameters will stay exactly the same and not improve. That's the trouble with digital -- that level "X" you mention represents both the minimum and the maximum level of quality. You have to get a brand-new projector if you want it to increase.

When I go to a movie now, if the print is of poor quality, that doesn't bother me so much because I know that for the next movie, it will be a whole new print; thus the quality can (and usually is) different.

But with digital -- that's it! Whatever level the quality is at when the projector is first installed is where it will remain forever, unless the projector is completely replaced by a new one.

I just don't see spendthrift theater chains being all that enthusiastic about upgrading. Once they install a digital projector they will likely just leave it in place for years or even decades. Recall Phil Barlow of Disney's recent comment in which he said they will not make any money off digital cinema for at least seven years. That's seven years with no upgrades at all; probably followed by at least another seven years (since they will no doubt want to have it in place actively saving them money for at least an equal amount of time as it took to pay for it). So that's a total of fourteen years in which the pixel count does not increase by even one!

I am concerned that if companies get too hasty and start installing digital systems before they have reached their full potential, we will be stuck watching inferior images for the next couple of decades. This so-called digital "revolution" is in danger of saddling everyone with needlessly low standards.

quote:

---

David Baum wrote:
TI has introduced new anamorphic chips recently, 1920x1280 or something...

---

Now that's new. I know they recently came out with their "black" chips (the ones with improved contrast), but they are still 1280x1024. Has there been an announcement? (TI's website doesn't say anything about it.) It seems like every few months the rumors pop up that TI has finally reached HDTV's full 1920x1080 resolution (which is still not enough to replace film, but at least it's better than 1280x1024) ... but it never actually materializes. It's one of those "I'll believe it when I see it" things.

quote:

---

Ted Costas wrote:
And I hate to say this, but Digital Cinema has come a long way baby. It really looks better...

---

Well Ted, I'm the kind of person you have to convince. I'm not a projectionist (I'm not even in the exhibition industry), so I've got no vested interest -- I'm not worried about losing my job. I'm just a customer. I just want to be able to pay my money and see the best presentation possible.

And you know what? I'm not impressed with the digital presentations I've seen so far. It may have come a long way, but it's still got a long way to go. I can still remember just how good the 70mm 6-track presentations were that I saw in the 80s and early 90s. As a customer, I demand that level of quality. So far digital is just all hype and no results. As it stands now, I'd rather pay to see a 35mm print than a 1280x1024 DLP presentation.

Just my $0.02...

At a recent SMPTE/USC event, at the Entertainment Technology Center's Digital Cinema Laboratory in the Pacific Hollywood theatre, "Space Cowboys" was screened, with alternating reels between digital (TI's latest DLP Cinema prototype) and film (35mm release print through a Kinoton PK60E). Sitting about 2.5 screen heights back (the screen was about 50 feet wide), the DLP image looked very impressive compared to film in terms of blacks and spatial resolution (except for stationary graphics), and I slightly preferred its brightness and sharpness. Fleshtones did look somewhat washed out, with film seeming to have somewhat greater depth and richness with color rendition. But what I expected was the film to have noticeable flicker and jitter/weave. But neither was easily detected--the film projection was flawless and one of the best I have seen, and the print was in remarkably good condition.

I came away from this event with two observations: 1) DLP Cinema projection on a 50-foot screen, at a mere resolution that can be produced on a computer monitor is undeniably impressive and the technology is only going to get better (and has to get better), and 2) Film projection standards at their best can raise image quality to a whole new level and pose a greater challenge to digital cinema.

I'm curious to see how the detractors are going to react when JVC's and Kodak's new projectors (at QXGA resolution) come online with actual digital cinema demonstrations. Are they still going to complain when they get to look at 2k images? If so, then why isn't anyone crying foul that film is scanned at "only" 2k for CGI work? Or that Roger Deakins accepted a 2k scan of the camera neg for "O Brother Where Art Thou?" for digital color manipulation?

Of course, this is all separate from the question of future upgradability of projectors and technological obsolesence.

quote:

---

The problem I see with detractors of digital cinema is that they're basing all of their criticisms on digital cinema in its current state. I feel that digital cinema looks very impressive but has quite a ways to go before it can be acceptable for prime time.

---

But the other camp, the shillers of digital cinema, are trying to sell something which does not exist yet, hypeware.

How realistic *or* ethical is that?

Here's an ugly illustration of someone selling something now which is not yet ready for prime time:

Check the League of Historic American Theatres site.

At this year's convention, there's a speaker to convince historic
theaters to add some sort of digital projection technology.
Most booths were so cramped that when platters came, one projector
had to leave the booth. So, with a digital projector, there'd be no room for a 2nd projector for changeovers *or* another projector - not to mention no product...

The fella came from the city with a case of this snake oil which he said would cure everything, so we bought it...

From
http://lhat.org/conference_theatre/plenary_sessions.asp

quote:

---

PLENARY SESSION
3

Digital Cinema: New Technology for Old Movie Theatres
Friday, July 20, 2001
8:30 AM
Roosevelt Hotel

Digital technology is changing all aspects of our existence, in our businesses, personal lives and entertainment options. We have digital systems in all aspects of the production and presentation of entertainment and educational programs.

This session presents a comprehensive overview of the exhibition and distribution of film-based media, as well as alternate content such as High Definition "films" of music, dance, theater, and popular attractions for presentation on large screens in historic theatres.

The presenters will be Barry Rebo and Giovanni Cozzi, co-founders of EmergingCinemas, LLC, a New York based company. Both have many years of experience in both digital production and digital presentation technologies. EmergingCinemas is assembling a national network of digital screening venues such as those operated by many LHAT members.

Topics to be covered include:

The impact of digital technologies on the production of entertainment content.
Most major film festivals, such as the prestigious Sundance Film Festival, now use digital projection technologies. What's involved, what does it cost?
Understanding the major components of a digital projection system.
Content, in an appropriate digital format, that will be available to your facility now, and in the near future.
Ways to get started. What's out there today, and business strategies and options to be pursued.

---

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

That's the trouble with digital -- that level "X" you mention represents both the minimum and the maximum level of quality.

---

Sorry, but no. Even with the same hardware, there can be improvements made to the image quality. Notice the difference in the quality of your TV picture when it gets a better signal. Or in a QUicktime movie played on a computer. You can have a Quicktime that has a resolution of 320x240 (just for example) that has mediocre image quality. Let's say it is compressed with the Sorenson 3 codec. You can also have a Quicktime, also 320x240, also encoded with Sorenson (even with the same frame rate, etc), but it looks MUCH better? How? Less compression. No new hardware required. Sure, the file takes up a bit more space, but there is a difference and hardware doesn't play a part in that difference. Storage is super-cheap nowadays.

quote:

---

Perry Sun wrote:
The problem I see with detractors of digital cinema is that they're basing all of their criticisms on digital cinema in its current state. I feel that digital cinema looks very impressive but has quite a ways to go before it can be acceptable for prime time.

---

There are companies out there (Disney, Technicolor, etc.) who are saying that the current state is "good enough". They are making plans to take the current state and install it in theaters. I'd say that makes the current state a perfectly valid target for criticism. I am not going to give digital cinema a free ride. If they're going to try and shove it down consumers' throats before it's ready, I'm going to complain. Adopting a wait-and-see attitude is not appropriate in that case.

Basically, it doesn't matter if the technology improves later on. It only matters what actually gets installed in theaters.

And again, there's the problem of upgrades. Or rather, a lack of upgrades. Just look at Technicolor's digital cinema plan. They say they are going to install 1280x1024 DLP projectors (there's that "current state" again) in 1000 theaters for free and build up from there. But where is their financial incentive to upgrade? The cheapest thing for them to do is to just leave those theaters alone and never install anything new. Those 1000 screens will be stuck for years, possibly decades, at 1280x1024 resolution. I would even bet that some of them will stay that way until the building is torn down! And like I said before, Phil Barlow of Disney recently said they're not going to make any money off digital cinema for at least seven years. Does anyone believe they are going to upgrade before that time is up? How about after? Won't they want at least a few years to enjoy it after its paid for before they even consider spending more money on it? If they manage to make the current state of digital cinema a de facto standard, why would they bother spending the money to move beyond it? (But I'm repeating myself here.) In any case, studios have already made it abundantly clear that they do not care about quality. (If they did, we would still be watching movies in 5-perf 70mm.) I have no faith that they will upgrade.

quote:

---

I'm curious to see how the detractors are going to react when JVC's and Kodak's new projectors (at QXGA resolution) come online with actual digital cinema demonstrations. Are they still going to complain when they get to look at 2k images? If so, then why isn't anyone crying foul that film is scanned at "only" 2k for CGI work?

---

Hey, I complain about 2K resolution SFX all the time, and so do a lot of other people. I like to play "spot the jaggies" whenever I'm at the movies. 2K would be minimally acceptable to me, but I'd still rather see more.

The human eye can resolve details at a viewing angle of about 1 arcminute (here is a reference). And when I go to the movies, I like to sit so that my total viewing angle for the entire screen is about 60 degrees. For a 2.39:1 image, that works out to just over 2 screen heights back (isn't that the SMPTE recommended viewing distance?). Going by the 1 arcminute measure, that means a 2.39:1 image would have to have at least 3600 pixels across its width in order for the pixels to become so small that the eye couldn't resolve them anymore at a distance of 2 screen heights. 2K resolution doesn't measure up to that, and 1280x1024 sure as heck doesn't.

quote:

---

Or that Roger Deakins accepted a 2k scan of the camera neg for "O Brother Where Art Thou?" for digital color manipulation?

---

Here is a quote from a Kodak article about it:

quote:

---

Deakins believes that 2K scanning imposes compromises in the quality of the final images. Priestnall noted it would be impractical to scan, store and handle digital files for a complete motion picture at 4K resolution today, but predicted that it is a likely future development.

---

Sounds like Deakins only accepted it because he had to, not because he wanted to.

quote:

---

Joe Redifer wrote:
Even with the same hardware, there can be improvements made to the image quality.

---

Yes, but if you look at TI's web page, you'll see that they usually start with 2K resolution material and then scale it down to 1280x1024 before sending the data to theaters. They are already "maxing it out". The only way to get an improved picture out of DLP is to increase the native resolution of the display element.