"Color timing was modified using a DaVinci 2K color corrector."

That is not the same thing. Perhaps you saw this somewhere else on the site? Also, resolution isn't everything. My example had two Quicktimes of the same resolution (320 x 240), yet there was a difference. It doesn't matter if the source was 640x480 or 27840x20880 (other differences such as color nonwithstanding), the Quicktime will look the same if you used the same amount and type of compression, etc. It's all about the compression. I haven't seen an actual digital presentation in a theater yet, but if you can see ANY type of compression artifact, whether it be blockiness (not aliasing) or anything else, then that can be fixed without changing resolution or source material. I see differences in DVDs all the time! Check out the first release of "Seven" and compare it to the recent release. Both are the same resolution, but the newer one uses a far more optimized transfer and compression.

Then what?

 |  IP: Logged

The upgradability issue of projectors is certainly being considered with the various business models that are being proposed. I've also heard from at least one DLP Cinema manufacturer who is offering a trade-in credit for an upgrade to a future projector. That having been said, trying to sell and install DLP Cinema at this time isn't in the best interests of the exhibitor, since SMPTE standards haven't been finalized, and based on current discussion the resolution for the "initial" implementation of digital cinema should be about 2k for 1.85:1 and about 2.4k for 2.39:1. TI is reportedly working on refining their DMD to increase the density of their micromirrors, but they also would like to know what exactly the industry wants in terms of spatial resolution.

Some from the projector manufacturers believe that the now "current" DLP Cinema projectors, if they were to be installed in theatres now would be shifted to smaller screens as new projectors become available.

The catalyst that will move d-cinema ahead is a business model that works for everyone, one that also takes into account upgradability. The problem is that any business plan is highly likely to shake so many existing foundations of exhibition/distribution that uniform acceptance could be very difficult.

You can justify film as highly preferable to digital, but to justify on the basis of being able to realize 3.6k resolution, when the theoretical resolution of 35mm film is 4k, but under realistic projection conditions is far lower due to focus, jitter/weave is a little far-reaching to me.

------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review www.widescreenreview.com

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Actually there are several projectors out there that focus flutter, jitter and weeve are a non issue as they should be

---

Aside from this, there is also the question of how much generational loss in resolution results from interpositive to high speed-duplicated release print. Perhaps John Pytlak has a good estimate?

 |  IP: Logged

Besides, the good DLP will be when no downconversion will occur, that is if the movie has been shot at the resolutionof the DMD. That is what Lucas has been doing for EP II with the Sony digicams, using the current highest existing dmd resolution. But as you say, studios don't want to wait.
Besides, the masses are J6packs and can't distinguish squat from shit !
But again, TI has majors by the cojones.

I don't like progress at all cost. Look at the dvd: you end up with dvd loaded up with supplements at the expense of the sound and the image sometimes. And the great PCM tracks, "lossless" audio used on laserdiscs has been ruled out of the dvds by Dolby and replaced by the crappy dolby surround 192kbps!
Now, we go from 2000points per line of film or more to SXGA. duh !
Studios however are ready to maintain quality over time rather than guaranteeing naturalness and maximum resolution. If it results in higher box offices numbers, ok, good for theaters too but for purists.......

A couple of thoughts...first on the printing issue....from what I understand (and Mr. P. has posted many times now) the primary problem with high-speed printing isn't the speed itself but the fact that they contact print each stage rather than using a step-print between contacts...that is, there are only two pitches of film 1866 and 1870...you can only contact print one stage before a step print or jitter will result. There are many high quality low jitter prints out there...unfortunately, this business of contact printing each stage has been allowed.

On to the next item...costs...what is the life expectancy of the D Cinema projectors...then what is the cost/year of operating the D Cinema projection equipment (regarless of who is paying)? I have seen no financial models that can exist in the cinema market...at least none where the exhibitor is paying anything on the projectors. What exhibitors pay for film projectors is very little and why they pay for upkeep is almost immeasurable as compared to video.

You will read about people here on film-tech bitch about changing belts out at the cost of less than $100/year...we just got a quote back from Apollo for repairing one of their projectors (a small one at that) for just under $10,000...Are exhibitors prepaird to pay the equivalent of a new projector every 5 years? They sure aren't now.

Back to resolution a bit...what if...70mm was adopted as the film projection standard instead of 35mm (stop laughing and hear me out)...The cost/theatre to convert every screen over to 70mm would cost the exhibitor less than 10% of that for video (now with DTS and such as a viable sound track medium)...all the exhibitor would have to do is replace just the projector head, no penthouse, drop in 70mm centerfeeds, and swap rollers...they would now have a robust system that after the initial purchase wouldn't cost them any more/year than their existing 35mm systems. How does D Cinema compare to that...after all 70mm is state-of-the-art in film projection, not 35mm...35mm is just the most popular. D Cinema doesn't have the resolution of 70mm and with one shot, the quality of the image jumps about 3 fold.

Then there are the side benefits...I mean Kodak I'm sure would be in favor of an all 70mm world! (right John?) And even Dolby should love it...after all they have been trying to rid the planet of those god awful, better sounding, silver analog tracks on 35mm...Just think how proud Ioan would be to know that DTS would be saving the environment!

The patron would be seeing a vastly improved show (or potentially improved show) with the increase in sharpness and steadiness...all for the same low-low price

The only losers in the deal would be the distributers that have to pay for the 70mm prints. This might cut back on print availability...which...might not be such a bad idea for the industry as a whole since we are much too over screened...the industry would be better off with fewer yet higher quality movie theatres...it would have the best result if longevity is the goal...not just immediate profit.

I site an example...the theatre I work at, the Uptown in Washington, DC often will play day and date with a popular Hoyts theatre. On opening week, the Hoyts will often out gross us by virture of more screens...ah ha, the bean counters would say...see multiplexes are a smart move...look at the bottom line! But at the end of the title's run, we almost ALWAYS out gross them on every title. A high quality large theatre, long term, is more financially sound than a lower quality small theatre.

Steve

Last I looked at the numbers, 70mm screens outgross their 35mm counterparts by about 24:1. How can the bean counters at the studios ignore those numbers? Yet they do...nothing I would say would change their minds...But think about it...if it where an all 70mm world and we reduced our screen count by say 24:1...Everyone wins! Those theatres still left would have a good attendance if they built high quality theatres since the experience in the theatre would be more than it is today...that is...a sneak preview of what is coming out on DVD. And while we are at it...lets finally go up to 30fps and rid ourselves of the flickery 24fps standard once and for all. Mike Todd really did have it right...way back in the early/mid '50s. It is a shame we have not advanced the industry in the past 50 years and it is absolute crazyness that we are going to try an adopt a D Cinema standard based on films worst public offering in 35mm's entire life...that is the 1.85:1 ratio.

BTW...I hear Lawrence of Arabia is due to have new prints struck in 70mm DTS.....A 70mm world? You have to start someplace!

Steve

Sure, DLP may be a "flicker free" image. But it sure is NOT as sharp as a frame from a four perf 35mm film print. I run my 21" computer monitor at a 1600 X 1200 desktop or 1800 X 1440 when doing some rather elaborate Photoshop work. I cannot stomach working at 1280 x 1024 ---and it is at this decidedly PUNY TINY resolution that DLP wants to replace 35mm?

The word "DIGITAL" is quickly turning into a means of selling snake oil. It is a come on. Until the folks at TI and other digital cinema companies can come up with something that truly matches or surpasses 35mm 4-perf levels of sharpness, their product will not be suitable for replacing film. But they use the term "DIGITAL" as if their product is "perfect". This is one area where I really wish the general public could pull its collective head out of its backside. There are such things as pitifully bad forms of "DIGITAL". The current versions of DLP are one of those bad forms. I don't want 35mm projectors replaced en masse by current DLP systems.

The thing I really cannot understand is the business model behind DLP. It just seems stupid. Texas Instruments is not developing micromirror chips tailor made for the commercial theatrical exhibition market. Absolutely not. The DLP chips they make are primarily targeted for computer based video projectors, flat panel monitors (with FAKE HDTV resolution claims), and low resolution replacement flat panel monitors for people like me --computer graphic artists. To the guys at TI, make a freaking better DLP chip that is better suited for my needs other than viewing web pages. I am a damned graphic artist. I need HIGH resolution. Bare minumum before we talk about me replacing my "outdated" CRT monitor is the 1600 X 1200 barrier --and that has to be at a 85Hz refresh or better too. Since CRT displays have NO problem doing resolutions such as 2048 X 1536, those little micromirror chips should be doing the same thing, if not a lot better. But 1280 X 1024 seems to be the best they can do. I feel sorry for those folks who have shelled out thousands of dollars on flat panel "HD" ready monitors only to be stuck with a screen resolution only suitable for a 17" computer monitor.

Ultimately, DLP is a Pandora's box for theater operators. Home users will quickly be able to equal or surpass whatever digital cinema can do in the commercial theater. While DLP is hoodwinking audiences at $7 to $10 a pop for a puny, crude and highly compressed 1280 X 1024 image, those who have a HDTV system and digital video playback will be enjoying the film in better reproduced 1080i HD quality and possibly 5.1 uncompressed LPCM audio to boot. Just look at what it costs for a commercial theater to put Dolby Digital and DTS in the same booth rack versus the $300 someone can spend to get DTS and Dolby Digital in an entry level receiver. One can put together a respectable home theater sound system for under $1,000. An even wider gulf in cost will be had with what commercial theaters have to spend for DLP versus what the average Joe will have to spend to put a better quality HD display into his house. What are movie theaters going to have to spend in terms of keeping their houses "upgraded" to respectable standards --that is if the 1280 X 1024 standard is ever upgraded. Since it is already "digital" then it must already be "perfect" right?

My feeling is that commercial theater companies need to redirect their focus away from the DLP systems that are not appropriate for use at this time. They are certainly NOT good enough to replace 35mm film prints. And I feel that DLP would just be another way for home theater to "one-up" commercial cinema, much in the way home theater has already one-upped commercial theaters in the sound department.

Items like large format projection with 70mm 5-perf for theatrical features and formats like 8/70 and 15/70 can be the real salvation for commercial cinema --and a way for commercial cinema to dramatically differentiate itself from the tyranny of home video. There is no way any TV set, not even an HD one, can approximate the look of true 65mm/70mm production. IMAX on DVD is arguably a joke and would continue to be in HD form as well. Sure, you're getting the content, but not the whole picture or visceral feel.

Someone mentioned this in another thread, but it won't take long at all before the exact same technology (if not better) is used in the home to deliver home movies. Same exact resolution, same exact data, etc. There will be no advantage in going to a movie theater. I think we need to give people something they simply cannot get at home. And I'm not talking about gimmicks like 3D or EX or anything like that. I'm talking superior image quality (preferably 70mm) and sound. DLP offers uncompressed sound, but will the picture quality stand the test of time?

I wonder what DTS thinks of all this? There wouldn't be any need for their services if digital cinema was the norm.