Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anybody attending the Sony 4K Demo?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Anybody attending the Sony 4K Demo? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Anybody attending the Sony 4K Demo?

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-05-2005 10:14 AM

Since we are doing "blue sky" thinking, how about a theatre-screen sized flexible Kodak Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display? [Wink]

:

Kodak OLED Technology

quote:
OLED displays’ high-definition images and video are inspiring next-generation devices – and display-centric functions yet to be imagined. LCDs’ limitations such as pixel aperture size do not exist in OLED displays.

In fact, as manufacturers perfect designs for flexible circuitry, Kodak is preparing new kinds of devices including ones that roll up, fold or bend... OLED displays make entertainment applications look better. Their 170-degree viewing angle makes video and games much easier to share: Viewers enjoy bright, clear images and a great experience no matter where they are seated...Independent of circuitry, Kodak's active OLED display pixels refresh at 200 frames per second, for smoother full-motion effects than LCDs...Along with fluid video, OLED screens display vibrant, true color from nearly every angle, unlike LCDs

Kodak NUVUE OLED Displays

quote:
KODAK NUVUE OLED Displays: 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.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-05-2005 11:39 AM

What's the basic cost for OLED, perhaps in terms of cost per square inch or square centimeter? Depending on that number, OLED may be impractical for giant sized screens.

I've been reading about OLED technology for years (along with other different processes like Hi-FED). But most articles I've read say OLED seems geared for smaller displays, such as smart phones, portable gaming consoles, portable DVD players, etc. I haven't seem much in the way of OLED announcement for things like notebook computer screens, flat panel (or even curved panel) TVs and HDTV systems.

Will there be any big OLED-based product annoucements at the Winter CES '05 show in Las Vegas?

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 01-05-2005 11:44 AM

Will the OLED screen be available in standard and micro sound perforation models [Big Grin]

...and being organic, what do you have to to care and feed the screen [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 01-05-2005 12:54 PM

Haven't heard of any OLED announcements for the Winter CES, opening tomorrow here. But Sony will be unveiling their two new consumer SXRD RPTVs, part of their "Grand Wega" line. The consumer SXRD chip is 2k--don't know if they'll have any of their 4k stuff set up for the show.

Also, there are reports in the Japanese financial press that say Sony will abandon plasma in favor of LCD for their consumer displays as early as this spring, but Sony is denying this. BBC News article

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-05-2005 01:06 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
What's the basic cost for OLED, perhaps in terms of cost per square inch or square centimeter? Depending on that number, OLED may be impractical for giant sized screens.

It's relatively new technology, and being used for smaller displays. But display size is likely to increase dramatically, and costs will come down. The ability to mass produce thin and flexible displays is very attractive. The efficiency, color gamut, and wide viewing angle are very impressive.

Quite a few companies have licensed or partnered Kodak's OLED technology:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1490&pq-locale=en_US

quote:
KODAK OLED Licensee Manufacturers
Kodak supplies exclusive OLED materials and expertise to the companies with which it has licensing agreements. These include:
DENSO Corp.
eMagin Corp.
Lite Array Inc.
Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.
Opsys Ltd.
Opto Tech Corp.
OPTREX Corp.
Pioneer Electronics Corp.
Ritek Corp.
Rohm Ltd.
Samsung NEC Mobile Display Co., Ltd.
Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., a Kodak joint-development partner
TDK Corp.
TECO Electric & Machinery Co., Ltd.
Truly International
Varitronix International Ltd.

quote: Richard Fowler
...and being organic, what do you have to to care and feed the screen?

You just need to feed it electrons. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 01-05-2005 01:12 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Since we are doing "blue sky" thinking, how about a theatre-screen sized flexible Kodak Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) display?

Organic

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-05-2005 01:15 PM

The LEDs use ORGANIC dyes (i.e., organic chemistry), as opposed to inorganic semiconductors (e.g., silicon-based). No, they are not "alive", even though the displayed pictures can look alive. [Wink]

Kodak led the development of tunable organic dye laser technology (which also finds its way into laser display technology):

http://www.opticsjournal.com/hpdl.htm

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/external/Research/peterson_fellow.html

quote:
Otis Peterson and a fellow researcher, Sam Tuccio, developed the cw dye laser for Eastman Kodak in late 1969/1970. The development of the dye laser was a significant and surprising breakthrough—a textbook out at the time said that lasers made of common organic dyes dissolved into organic solvents could not be made to operate continuously, and general belief supported that supposition.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-05-2005 03:23 PM

I'm particularly interested in OLED technology since it has a great deal of potential in the signage and point-of-purchase display advertising market. The capability of making a video display both large and flexible could yield some very wild results. A few large LED-based displays in Times Square show possibilities on a large scale. The new curvy, modular Coca-Cola sign, the curved J.P. Morgan-Chase sign, the ABC News display and NASDAQ signs have taken the concept of flat video displays and added dimension to them. OLED, if implemented properly, could stand to do the same kind of thing on a somewhat smaller yet much more affordable scale.

| IP: Logged

Bevan Wright
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 176
From: Fountain Valley, CA, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 01-07-2005 07:30 AM

Note: The January 13th demonstration mentioned in this press release has been rescheduled. We will post the new date as soon as available.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-07-2005 11:56 AM

quote: Richard Fowler
Showeast displayed an image on about a 12 - 14 foot screen (in an exhibit room) with people about 1/2 screen width away. They display was uncompressed HD and 2/4K material via a group of servers using cinema trailers and some custom shot 65mm material. The resolution especially in the 65mm material was excellent at 4K...the film trailer less so, again I think 2K would be fine.

I saw some of the same display(s) at ShowEast and was not too impressed. Sure, to the "average moviegoer" it will look fine, but most average moviegoers don't even notice changeover cues or in some cases, even scratches!! (No one in our group but me noticed the four big base scratches down one side when we saw Spiderman 2)

My biggest complaint was the "translucent" look of the image. Of course, the ShowEast display was on the trade show floor with lights all over, but even in one of the displays set up in a mock screening room looked washed-out to me. Resolution wise, it was OK. (I guess from watching compressed video so much I can pick out pixellation more easily) But as for contrast, it was pretty disappointing.

One setup was playing a clip of Shrek 2. That's not really a fair demonstration since it's computer-generated source material, but even still the green in Shrek's face lacked punch, the blue sky looked murky, and blacks looked more navy-blue than dark grey.

These were all part of the trade show, though. I didn't get a chance to attend the Kodak demonstration in one of the conference rooms.

In all honesty, any "demonstration" of the company's product by the company itself will always be the best they can offer. If they *know* certain material won't look good they simply won't show it. I have yet to see an independent demonstration like Brad has mentioned before, switching from film to digital and back with each reel change. That won't happen for obvious reasons -- it will make digital look inferior.

If a company like Sony were to do such a comparison themselves, there's no doubt there'd be some monkey business to make the film print look out of focus, or worse in some way compared to digital. Thinking it's an honest comparison would be naiive. Think of the old Bounty commercials with Rosie... did you ever think the "leading brand" would perform better? Of course not.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A few large LED-based displays in Times Square show possibilities on a large scale. The new curvy, modular Coca-Cola sign, the curved J.P. Morgan-Chase sign, the ABC News display and NASDAQ signs have taken the concept of flat video displays and added dimension to them.

BLAH! More needless flashy things cluttering the landscape. I recently watched "Batteries Not Included" and was AMAZED at how clean, uncluttered and plain-looking Times Square was back then. It actually looks like a city instead of a web site without popup control.

They have tons of those LED-based video screens all over Orlando, including one at the NBA restaurant at Universal. It looks good from far, far away, but once you get close to about 50 feet away, there's frozen and burnt out "pixels" everywhere, convergence is horrible, and live-action video looks worse than an 8mm print blown up to that size. And this is in a high-profile, tourist-laiden resort/attractions area.

What's worse is these things up and down the highway acting as "billboards" for the attractions. Sea World has one, as does Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede that LOVE to FLASH colors between each message. I guess it's more important for drivers to read the sign than to pay attention to traffic. They should display: "While your car's in the shop, come visit Sea World!" [Roll Eyes]

Speaking solely from memory, I read that the inventor of billboards himself once said, "You know the character and charm of a town has been lost once a billboard appears on its landscape." So true.

=TMP=

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 01-07-2005 01:06 PM

Tom, are you trying to have Bobby become unemployed and homeless [Confused]

Contrast is still a big issue with LCOS type of display having the light source reflecting off a glass chip. The most recent JVC 2K projector for home use boasts high contrast but no mention of the much lower light output. I have been able to view many 35mm OCN prints which are much superior in sharpness and contrast compared to the final release prints in cinemas. 35mm release print quality outside of the USA is sometimes much better than the prints we endure locally..so as one standard is getting sloppy the competition is trying to improve. The demostration at the ETC center in Los Angeles is maybe too much for Sony to consider at this time since the venue is set up to show film and DLP as a comparison.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 01-07-2005 05:27 PM

1 laser can increase the contrast ratio
2 the light source can be modulated, better black level

What we need to consider is that in the end the off screen contrast will be limited by the room and not the technology in most cases. There are safety regulations that kills contrast.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-07-2005 06:44 PM

Richard, what was your opinion on the "look" of live action material on the Sony machine?

I recalled your post from Infocomm where you'd remarked that the 4K images looked like film dailies...but were they "too perfect"?

I saw tests on a 2K "Dark metal" DLP unit a couple of months back, and though the live action images looked really great, they didn't have the same "feel" of film. Because they were so steady and so sharp, they had the same effect as watching documentaries or other "reality" type programming on TV...you didn't suspend your disbelief. BTW these were actually 35mm images mastered to HD.

This kind of ties in with what Roger Ebert said before regarding the very different physiological experience of a continuous, progressive digital display versus film's interrupted display and very slight movement.

Or is this irrelvant, and people will simply get used to the new "feel" of perfect digital images?

Any comments also Thomas and Mattias as you seem to have seen a lot of D-cinema presentations?

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 01-07-2005 09:05 PM

My prediction:

1. Sony will get their technology to 16K, while the rest of the industry will settle on 8K projectors and 8K source material.

2. AMC will buy all Sony 16K projectors (which will cost three times as much as the 8K projectors) for every auditorium in the country.

3. Sony will decide one day to just stop making and supporting their projectors.

[Razz]

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 01-19-2005 12:53 AM

I was just running some numbers to compare the resolution of Sony's 4K projector vs. 4K digital intermediates. I got most of this info from cinesite (except the super35 numbers, I got from bipack). So basically a 4K scan of a film shot in scope would be 3656x3112 (11.4 Megapixel), a film shot in super35 would be 3950x1647 (6.5 Megapixel), and a film shot in flat would be (interpolating from academy offset) 3656x1976 (7.2 Megapixel).

Sony's 4K projector is 4096x2160 (8.85 Megapixel). So would the following be correct to say (assuming they get the contrast and color to equal film at some point)?:

If a release print and a digital file were made directly from a 4k digital intermediate, the 4K digital projector will look at least as good if the source material was flat or super35 and only slightly worse if the source material is scope.

Since no release print is directly from a laser recorder, at least some of that resolution will be lost in practice. Is it then safe to say that with proper contrast and color, 4K digital projection should eclipse the quality of 35mm film projection.

I know that John Pytlak has commented before about the need for anti-aliasing filters which reduce the resolution of the fixed array projection system. Are these same filters requred when working with digital intermediates (or digital effects for that matter) when printed to film? Or does the film grain sufficiently randomize the image even though it is printed like a fixed array.

| 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.