For the example you gave (20m wide 2.35:1 screen). If one sits at exacly two screen heights (17m) away, the viewing angle will be 60.1 degrees. If one wants a viewing angle of exactly 60 degrees, the appropriate distance is 17.3m, or just over two screen heights ... as I said originally. However, it should be noted that the "scope" aspect ratio is 2.39:1, not 2.35:1 ... we've had that discussion before.

Also, what you said about Lucas filming Episode II at "exactly" the resolution of DLP is incorrect. He filmed it with a Sony HD camera which had a resolution of 1920x1080. The final image will have to be cropped to about 1920x803 to form a 2.39:1 "scope" image. Unless TI has come out with chip that has those figures as its native resolution, the resulting image will have to be scaled in both directions (scaled down in the horizontal direction, and scaled up in the vertical direction) to create a copy for display on DLP projectors.

Perry: I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect a theatrical display system to approach the limits of human vision. John Pytlak has posted before describing how in Kodak's screening rooms, they are able to measure 80 line-pairs per milimeter of film at the screen's surface. That demonstrates that is possible to get a full 4K of resolution from 35mm film. It just requires good equipment setup.

Now as to focus, you know as well as I do that focus is still a problem for digital projectors -- it is not specific to film. Or are you saying that lenses limit resolution to 2K and under, so we shouldn't bother trying to get more? If that is indeed what you are getting at, I'd like to hear from someone who knows about lenses. As I mentioned above, Kodak experiments were able to get the equivalent of 4K from film even as it was being projected, so that demonstrates it is possible to get that much information to go through the glass intact.

As for jitter and weave, they may cause the image to move slightly, but they do not somehow change the amount of detail it contains. If motion had the effect of reducing resolution, why would we even bother discussing it at all, since these are motion pictures we are talking about? Weave is at most a minor annoyance. I was at a showing of "The Score" yesterday, and I saw it on a screen about 60 feet wide. This was nothing special, just an ordinary screening of a release print at an ordinary multiplex. During the movie, I would occasionally look down at the corner of the screen to see how much the image moved around in relation to the masking. The answer I found was "not much". It was there, yes, but it did not somehow make me see less detail in the image. And that image was truly fantastic. I sat even closer than I normally do. I saw a smooth, detailed image with rich colors are terrific contrast. Why would I want to sacrifice all of those factors just to get rid of a little weave? Show me a digital projector that meets or beats even the best film in terms of resolution, color, and contrast, and then we'll talk about eliminating weave. As for now, it's at the bottom of my list of concerns.

In one of your posts, you touched on what is probably the biggest problem with film today -- the release printing process. A lot of what was originally on the film's negative is apparently getting lost in the printing process. I am conviced that a lot of the grain we see in today's prints, especially in darkly lit scenes, was added during duplication. I say this because I have been fortunate enough to see some dye-transfer and "show" prints of a few movies, and I can see that when prints are made with a process that preserves all or most of what was on the original negative, film really does live up to those high specs that get thrown around during these types of discussions.

What I would like to see is either better quality prints, or a digital process that is comparable to what film delivers in a "best case" scenario. These "real world" or "worst case" arguments are an attempt to dumb down the quality of movie presentation, when we should be trying to lift it up.

As always, just my $0.02.

quote:

---

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".

---

I think you're overreacting a bit here. Nobody is talking about an outright replacement for film right now. And TI certainly does not consider their product perfect. But I feel they are fully justified to tout DLP Cinema image quality and their achievements. Doug Darrow and the engineers at TI spent three years developing the technology, with A LOT of interaction with the film production community, especially cinematographers. They never felt their achivements with their technology was fully justified until the creative folks gave them their "thumbs up."

The question is whether digital projection technology is at the point where it can be acceptable for commercial implementation in theatres. The DLP Cinema manufacturers think so. I don't agree. I think we're definitely at a starting point for further evolution of digital technology, with eventual progression toward 4k resolution and beyond, though.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is not correct. DLP Cinema is a special feature set of DLP technology, for the purposes of theatrical use. The DMDs have a special black layering, behind the mirrors, which helps to improve contrast by absorbing any back scattering of light behind the micromirrors and straying through their spacing and into the optical path. In the trade, these DMDs are also known as the "black" chips, for differentiation from the "normal" DMDs that are used in other applications. The electronics and optics associated with the DMD for DLP Cinema were also specifically engineered.

quote:

---

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.

---

For your purpose, the CRT monitor will remain unbeaten for a long time to come. The same goes for home theatre video projectors. DLP and D-ILA, and the latest LCD projectors are all the rage now, and it seems that CRT is considered an old technology. But ask any videophile and he/she will tell you that nothing beats the image quality of a CRT, set up properly.

quote:

---

With digital cinema, commerical theaters cannot command that superior edge. Customers can then measure the picture and projection quality in terms of pixels and home video will quickly outstrip and outpace whatever moves digital cinema can make in commercial theater circles.

---

I think we're not far away from the day when the mainstream consumer is going to to discover a new-found ability to display large-screen images in the home that will give the reminiscent feel and look of a big-screen movie presentation. A study published earlier this year predicted that the focal point of a fully networked home in the future is going to be a projector. I have an article in Film Journal Interational for their August issue, warning exhibition industry people that they need to be aware of what is happening in the home theatre market with video technology.

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

I have a very nice kitchen in my house and I like to cook. So why do I eat out 5 nights per week?

I have a television in my house that I like to watch television programs on. When I want to see a movie, I go out and see one in a movie theatre.

 |  IP: Logged

From a technical level, the only thing where DLP shows feature superiority over 35mm shows is in the sound department --at least when a uncompressed 20-bit LPCM 5.1 audio track is being used. I feel the 1280 X 1024 resolution spec used by DLP is not acceptable for commercial use. But such DLP systems are being sold to commercial theaters anyway. I thumbed through the August issue of Box Office magazine and saw glossy DLP projection ads from the likes of Christie and Barco. When a movie theater pays a lot of money for one of these things, what do they do to get an upgrade? How much digging do they have to do in their pockets to keep up?

I see what is currently going on with DLP as just another example of how movie companies are using digital technology to just get by on a lowest common denominator level. 35mm film has a pretty high resolution to it. If you are doing computer graphics still image work that will be recorded to a 35mm film frame, the bare minimum for acceptable quality is 4000 line recording. Some people to 6K recording. In the early 1990's a decent amount of early CGI work was done at 4K resolution. Now almost all of it is done only at 2,000 lines. That is so the special effects companies can bid on a sequence project better and offer a lower price and quicker turnaround time. I've seen complaints from time to time how people can see the pixels and jaggies in some CGI work. I don't think the movie companies really care about that much. The film will only play in theaters for two or three months and then be on DVD on a couple months after that.

I'm wondering just what George Lucas is going to be able to do in taking care of image resolution limit flaws when his digitally shot Episode II and III gets shown on "Super-HD" video systems a decade from now. It is going to be pretty funny. A movie shot in 70mm like "Lawrence of Arabia" will still look naturally sharp and those much younger Star Wars installments won't quite work. That's my argument for shooting movies on film (aside from videotape not being able to accurately reproduce the "film look").

As for DLP chips having any exclusivity to commercial movie theaters, perhaps there might be some specialized chips, but I am seeing the same DLP logo pop up on computer projection displays and even on flat panel monitors. To look at Texas Instruments' website, one would not come away thinking DLP was just something for movie theaters. There is not enough of a customer base for TI to justify making all kinds of chips. Home video and computer applications is their main target, and will be for any higher resolution chips they develop.

In the end, it comes down to a numbers game with "digital". Home theater developments will be able to move faster and cheaper than what can be implemented in a commercial theater environment. I've had people tell me, "image quality is not why people go to the movies," or they'll say something about how much bigger a commercial theater screen is than someone's new HDTV monitor. Sure, there other attractions to get people into the movie theater. But picture and sound quality are major factors in this. The cost for taking a family to the movies has not risen all that much over the last decade, but it still is fairly expensive. As the hit to the wallet gets worse, people will find more reasons to watch the movie on their home system. If they are able to say to themselves, "this theater's digital picture is no better than the one I have at home", that will be a big problem. I can just see the marketing on it now: "the same (or better) picture quality than what you get at the theater!"

This is why I think the movie theater industry needs to work on a different, film-based approach. Commercial theaters have to be able to differentiate themselves from home theater. They can't do that with DLP. Any commercial DLP installation will be technically matched on home video. But home theater cannot equal 70mm projection (much less even 35mm).

I do think the movie distributors do have a legitimate complaint about having to strike 3,000 or 4,000 35mm prints at the cost of $2,000 to $3,000 per print. But the North American theatrical market is badly overscreened. Many older, outdated theaters need to just be closed. I see no reason for North America to have any more than 20,000 to 25,000 theater screens (if even that). With fewer screens, not as many prints have to be made --and better quality prints (like 70mm) can be made. Already, many people drive to "destination" movie theater complexes instead of just going to the crappy one right down their street. Ultimately, what we need is fewer theaters with a variety of traditional and large format special venue shows. Eventually movies may move on to being produced in large format.

An aside about DTS and how they relate to DLP, none of the three currently used formats will last forever --not even as it relates to film projection. Lossy compression audio formats like DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS are just not needed for a DLP show (even though the DLP video image is lossy compressed).

 |  IP: Logged

I don't want to burst you bubble but...I'd be willing to wager that if DCinema were to happen today...that Dolby-E would fast become the standard not any of the lossless systems you mentioned.

Steve

I think you'd win on your bet. Dolby is working on what I think is called "Dolby F" or a modification of Dolby E. The current discussion within SMPTE is to provide for up to 12 audio channels, though I believe at least one or two of them would be designated to multiple language/ADA use. This is all in the early stage so nothing is set in stone. Dolby E allows for only up to eight channels, so, I'm just guessing here, Dolby F addresses that...and also probably takes away the inherent features of Dolby E that are for video broadcast editing/monitoring/synch, while incorporating new metadata and other side data information that can be useful for d-cinema.

Dolby E is not lossless but does provide for a much milder compression than AC-3 at up to around 4:1. But the question arises...why is compression needed for d-cinema? The early speakers on this topic at trade shows and meetings seemed like they had been *looking* for reasons to justify compression, rather than state the necessity for it. One of the the speakers is very well known, from Dolby, so you could surmise that they're active in d-cinema to protect their interests.

The reasons stated for having audio compression for d-cinema include:

1. Uncompressed digital audio is still a "compression" of analong audio.
2. Bandwidth is not free.
3. The several GB that can be saved from audio compression can instead be used to potentially benefit image quality.

Do these sound like good excuses for implementing audio compression?

Click Here

Maybe it will provide some new information on things.

One thing, our DLP of JP-3 will be presented without the TI Logo, I am thinking about going to do some exit polling, and ask people if they thought this was digital or film.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Disney really messed up with "Atlantis", instead of using the entire chip, they letterboxed it and squeezed to 1280 X 800. (Corrected Info) It really did look pixelated and awful.

On the other hand, Shrek looks really awesome and so does Final Fantasy and JP3.

It really sad that Disney is the one who was starting this and they have had a couple of bad releases. "Emperor's New Groove" was pixelated too.

My 2 cents about all of this. If you go looking for something, you are going to find it. Do you look at your monitor running 1024x768 and go WOW, these letters and pictures look like poo. Maybe no, you find a resolution that gives you the real estate that you want and you are happy with that. Maybe yes, then you go and get something that fits your needs. Do you get just as upset about printing errors that create black dots, white dots, white string lines or do you just accept it and watch the movie for the value it is trying to give you.
Yes, I have 2 DLP's at my theatre now, as many probably know, and I think that the average movie go'er is accepting of what they see. It is ready for everyone? No. Is it going to take over all of our jobs? Not hardly. They do have to make it denser and then it will be "acceptable" to most. The movie companies have to be sure not to squeeze the heck out of something to make it fit. They scan at 4K, I don't know why Disney did what it did, but it sure didn't help Digital Cinema, regardless of whose technology you have in the booth.

I think I am done for now.

Paul.

http://www.cipherwar.com/news/01/sandia_20million_pixels.htm

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A 10-foot-high, 13-foot-wide screen that makes high-definition television look as grainy as an old TV in a cheap
motel has been unveiled by Sandia National Laboratories.

The facility's digitized images, created of 20 million pixels, approach the visual acuity of the eye itself. "The eyeball is the limiting factor, not the screen," says manager and program leader Philip Heermann. "From ten feet away, the image is as good as your eyes are able to see."

Lessee ... 20M pixels / (130 sq ft) =~ 153,000 pixels/square foot

sqrt(153,000) = 392 pixels/foot =~ 32 pixels/inch.

This is a paradigm shift in the industry and must be carried out with patience, due diligence and care to insure the health of the industry. Naysayers are a dime a dozen. People that are willing participate, do the work, and insure theatrical release integrity is few.

Now that the preamble is over let me touch on just a few of the items in the posting. While I would love to be able to address every posting I cannot. I will do the best I can.

I guess the first question to be answered is “Will Digital Cinema happen?”

Yes. While this is not the answer everyone was hoping for it is the reality.

The next question is “In what form?”

Who knows. The only thing known about Digital Cinema is that it must be better than what we are delivering to the theatre today. The home theatre experience is going to improve over the next few years and we must keep improving the movie going experience.

The current theatres using the TI DLP Cinema chips are a test bed. Know one in their right mind would argue the points made in this thread. These are only test. Most people that are working on the standards are looking at a minimum resolution of 1920 X 1080 for the next rounds of test. We do not know what the final resolution needs to be. We have learned a lot from these tests and TI’s Doug Darrow has done a great job listening to and learning from the community. They know they have to continue to improve and they will.

One point on the resolution issue: Please do not say that because you can see the screen door and mirrors that the resolution is not enough. This is not the resolution issue. On devises such as the D-ILA with resolutions of 2048 X 1536 and with less hard edges the few that are looking at these devises are now seeing resolutions that can show the film grain. FYI: anyone that says that have seen this resolution on a 45’ screen I would question. Very few have seen this on a larger than 23’ wide. Also the invitees so far to see this and other technologies is very limited to those that know how to view prototypes and engineering samples. Most that are untrained that see these types of devices do so and then only talk about the unfinished parts (which are usually stated up front) and not the potential of the devise.

As for the sound: committees that are working on the audio standards (it is now 16 channels) are supporting and promoting uncompressed audio. There will be a need for compression schemes in some countries where bandwidth is at a premium.

As for the projectionist role I can only say that now is the time to start learning the new tools that will be used sometime in the future. I hope Steve does not mind if is use his signature, “Old projectionists never die, they just changeover”.

Bottom line:

1. Digital Cinema will happen.
2. Digital Cinema will happen over time, not all at once.
3. The infrastructure to support Digital Cinema is still in the works.
4. Projectionist will be needed for Digital Cinema just as they are needed for Film.
5. The movie going experience is a social event and should always present a great theatrical presentation whether the presentation is Film or Digital.

For those that are interested you can participate in the standards activity through the SMPTE www.smpte.org . Look for the DC28 Digital Cinema Technology Committee. We are looking for people that know technology and are interested in preserving the integrity and quality of the Theatrical Presentation. It is not an easy task, but it must be done.

Al

------------------
********************************
Al Barton
Sony
GM SDDS Customer Support Group
GM Digital Cinema
10950 West Washington Boulevard
Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90232