Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K Digital Comparison

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 4K Digital Comparison (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: 4K Digital Comparison

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-27-2005 09:05 AM

It has taken TI nearly 6 years of research and development (read: spending lots of money) to jump from XGA and XGA+ resolution DLP chips to the new 2K models. It would be highly doubtful TI would roll out a 4K micromirror chip anytime soon.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-27-2005 09:39 AM

quote:
...announce a 4k projections system...in anticipation of Star Wars III in May.

Since Episode III is only being shot with the Sony HDCAM SR, it's certainly less than 4K, and arguably less than 2K. So why would 4K projection make much of an improvement?

Now if they shot it on 35mm or 65mm film, and did all the scanning, CGI, VFX, and output at 4K or greater, then 4K projection would matter, and the IMAX film prints would be MUCH better than anything seen with Episode II. When I did a TAP evaluation of the Rochester IMAX presentation of Episode II, the sharpness just didn't hold up well on a big screen.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-27-2005 10:37 AM

Mr Pytlak
I understand and I agree with the lack of resolution from not using a 4k digital capture device or film.

Mr Hendersson
TI has mostly done process improvements to increase contrast ratio. Interface improvements have also been done to increase the bit rate feeding the chip with data. In the modern product days of dlp I know of only one process shrink of the mirrors.

With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

2048x1080 is 1.2 or is it 1.25 inches in diagonal
For simplicity lets say that 2048x1080 is possible at 1.0 inches.
With a rotated orientation of mirrors a 2048x2160 would be about 1.4 inches as compared with 1.25 today. The larger chip would allow higher brightness for the biggest screens.

4k d-ila and 4k sxrd are even bigger. Without a shrink a TI pseudo 4k might be about the same size.

This 4k from TI might not be for every screen though.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-27-2005 01:18 PM

TI will not be showing a 4K DLP chip anytime in the near future. By the way the 2K DLP chip looks pretty good. It's only the LCOS and the Sony version of the LCOS that will be 4K and so far nobody has shown a dedicated Digital Cinema 4K Machine.

What I would expect is to hear about some structured deals to get those 2K DLP Digital Cinema machines in more theatres this year. But those are being discussed behind closed doors with the 4 or 5 big cinema chains.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-27-2005 01:47 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
TI has mostly done process improvements to increase contrast ratio.

Claims in contrast ratio mean very little. As far as I'm concerned contrast ratio specs have just been some marketing bullshit for lots of electronics companies to use in hiding the embarrasingly low native resolution of their products.

This isn't just a slam on TI either. Their marketing guys are certainly guilty of it and not being very forthcoming on actual native resolution specs of their products. Just about every maker of plasma screen and LCD screen televisions is flat out guilty of this as well.

I could not give the first damn about some "6000:1" contrast ratio listed on the sales tag of some flat screen TV. One thing's for certain, you have to do a lot of asking around to find the native resolution for any flat screen TV in an electronics store. It is very rare that native resolution is listed on any "HDTV" sold.

At the recent 2005 CES in Las Vegas, a number of electronics companies have been promoting "1080p" HDTV sets -only now that they have models that actually hit the 1920 X 1080 native resolution specification. Naturally, such monitors are extremely expensive high end items. Anything affordable is not a real HD capable monitor, just a glorified "EDTV". Buyer beware.

It's only now that TI has a DLP chip that shows the full resolution of a 1080 HD video frame they're willing to put native resolution specifications right out front.

At any rate, TI has been working on the micromirror chip for more than a decade. For a long time such chips were stuck at VGA, XGA and SXGA resolutions. I would find it hard to believe that TI would be able to quadruple the number of spinning micromirrors on a silcon chip from the 2K unit to something hitting 4K levels in a matter of only a few months. From the standpoint of feasibility in production, it would be easier to make a 4K chip in the LCOS process -and even that has had obvious problems.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 01-27-2005 02:45 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

You shouldn't underestimate the degree of resistance public wobulation is going to meet, especially from conservative religious groups.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-27-2005 03:21 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
With a new shrink and wobultation pseudo 4k should not be that far off.

quote: Michael Schaffer
You shouldn't underestimate the degree of resistance public wobulation is going to meet, especially from conservative religious groups.

Not only would some groups object to wobultation, but changing psychiatrists and doing 4K under false pretenses would make some consider digital projection to be the work of the devil. [evil]

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-27-2005 06:46 PM

Lots of companies are looking at wobulation
HP
TI
Ricoh, is that spelled correctly

By producing 4 subframes a 2048x1080 dmd could function as a 4096x2160 chip. Time will be lost and result in lost bit depth. Overlapping, not in time but in space, pixels will create a smooth picture but a softer and less sharp picture.

Using 4 subframes which some will do is perhaps going to far for Digital cinema but using 2 subframes with 2048x2160 might be doable.

I agree that for most of the time cr is marketing BS. Dlp states ANSI lumens at maximum brightness but cr with minimum brightness. Still with lower lumen home theater equipment improvents in cr with dlp has been very visible.

2k dlp was shown in 2003 and is getting mature now. Perhaps 4k can be shown now and mature over 1-2 years. That will send the message that TI is capable of 4k.

In the end what you can build is not most important but what you can sell.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 01-27-2005 07:57 PM

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Lots of companies are looking at wobulation

Mr Ohlson, we know what wobulation is. I was just making fun of the fact that the name sounds like something Phil would do at home.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-27-2005 08:00 PM

And "shrink" and "pseudo" and "wobulation" in the same sentence were to hard to resist joking about. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 01-27-2005 11:13 PM

True, especially sink "shrinking" and Phil are just automatic associations.

| IP: Logged

Don Cross
Film Handler

Posts: 97
From: Charleston, WV, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 01-28-2005 07:18 PM

Oops, we seem to be forgetting one probable item of concern here.

When it comes to expert stats about film versus digital; I have a considerable amount of experience. Consider the following...

The highest end (35mm body based) full frame (small format) digital camera; which would be the Canon Eos-1 Ds Mark II. It is capable of shooting a digital still at about 16.6mp. To go any higher than this file size (at the present time) would require a medium format camera with a digital back.

In order to effectively compare this high end camera to a film image one would have to weight the following factors. It would depend upon the subject matter; a landscape is significantly different from any portrait or wedding photo. Even more importantly it would also depend upon the film speed.

As noted in the January 2005 issue of Popular Photography the high end Canon camera is only capable of producing an image close to ISO100 film in most conditions. For all practical purposes though (in the field) it is really closer to the speed of ISO 200 film.

Unless one flies a spy plane for the USAF, the average consumer is still a few years away from digital being able to come close to closing the gap on film. Especially considering that I regularly use film speeds of 64 or even 25. Also consider the cost of digital versus the cost of film.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 01-29-2005 02:58 AM

Don
Digital presentation does not exclude using film. Capture on film will be important for digital cinema.

35mm still and motion camera negatives are not of the same size.
Still pictures and motion picture are two different fields. With a high resolution you might look at a glossy photo from a very close distance and looking at details one at a time.

I do not think that motion picture and photography is directly comparable.

[ 01-29-2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]

| IP: Logged

Don Cross
Film Handler

Posts: 97
From: Charleston, WV, USA
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 01-30-2005 12:44 AM

Thank you Mattias for pointing that out; and I agree with most of the points you make. I guess that I didn't make my post as clear as I should have.

To elaborate further... I believe that the current projector technology will end up being replaced well within the next five years for most theaters. There are two different options of where digital could possibly go to. It could be an upgradeable 4k or even 8k system as mentioned in some earlier postings by others.

The other option has been kept behind closed doors recently. Certain computer experts in the western United States and in Asia have been working with the idea of a type of interlaced screen without the need for any type of projection. More information about this technology should surface by the end of this year. Has anyone else heard about this type of non-projection screen technology?

Not to worry though- even once digital becomes more of an industry standard, there will still be quite a few houses which will still have the film projectors.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-31-2005 03:52 PM

As mentioned in another posting, Kodak Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) technology has the potential of being scaled up to produce larger flexible digital display screens:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1473/1481&pq-locale=en_US

quote:
High-definition image display that rivals reality.
Organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays show pictures and video at their best. Bright, clear images and fluid full-motion video appear true-to-life at almost any angle.

What is OLED?

Benefits of OLED

OLED Materials

Applications

Potential Applications

Partnerships and Licensing

Starting out small, but... [Wink]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.