Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: New L.A. Theatre Features 4K Digital Projection

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-05-2007 01:19 AM

Are you under the impression that they will stay on 4K only? Wait a few years and you will see all 2K projectors becoming obsolete since all films will be released only on 6K! 50 year old projectors still show film. Digital projectors today will not be able to project in 50 years later.
Film Rules!
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-05-2007 10:19 AM

I have said a number of times, as much as I love to handle film and have a sort of emotional affinity just because it's been my love since I was a child, intellectually I really don't care what the technology is. My desire is to put an image on the screen that can have the same impact that I experienced as a kid watchin LAWRENCE or MY FAIR LADY or WEST SIDE STORY, et al. Those classics are our national film heritage and future generations shouldn't be deprived of experiening those works of cinema art as we were able to experience them with the same quality and same intensity that is inherant in the original.

If DCinema could reproduce the quality of 70mm, then hell yes, I want it. Hopefully it will become available at a price that makes it viable for more rather than less of the majority of exhibitors. Wouldn't it be nice to have most of the theatres in the country able to show images akin to 70mm!

But the huge problem is, DCinema isn't anywhere near that capability yet and everyone knows it, no matter how much they babble about 2K. What's worse, as Bobby points out, the whole rush to DCinema is solely driven by one single motivation: the studios fixation on getting rid of print costs (at ANY cost) and the theatre owners' nearly irrational idea that somehow DCinema means the elimination of expensive technical skilled labor, i.e., the projectionist, without serious consideration of what yet unseen costs that $120,000 piece of technical aparatus will cost to maintain over the years of operation when it's no longer out-of-th-box new and tweeked.

And there in lies the insidious rub. Once a $120,000 2K level quality video projector is purchased and plunked in a booth with a quality level that is far below anything I was talking about in terms of the capability of exisiting film systems, that 2K machine has met the goal of the studio -- no more prints needed for that booth. End of story as far as what's going to happen in that theatre. That unit will STAY in place no matter WHAT the furture gains in presentation quality. There will be absolutely no economic reason to ever upgrade it. And even if there were a reason, say the Regal execs see their 8k or 6k or even 4k competitor putting on demonsterably better looking shows -- they've already blown their wad; they are not about to retrofit once again, putting them at an incredible economic disadvantage, possibly unsurvivable, to have to spend yet again so they can have what their competitor only had to purchase once.

That puts my kids and my grand kids at a markedly serious disadvantage over our generation because there will be Regals and Carmikes who jumped in too soon, unable to junk their 3000+ 2K projectors, and others with their 4Ks and then still more with their 6K and then the young turks with whatever the latest will be, possibly not even DLP. So it will be all over the map. And THAT's why I am very much against DC at the momment. It's just being implimented too soon and in a way that is irreversible.

So a pox on both their houses -- Distribution and Exhibition.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-05-2007 12:14 PM

quote:
Are you under the impression that they will stay on 4K only? Wait a few years and you will see all 2K projectors becoming obsolete since all films will be released only on 6K!

I have doubts that would happen.

First, a DCI-compliant 2K d-cinema projector should be able to play a DCI-compliant 4K movie. It just would only display 25% of the pixels on screen. Security was the main factor that killed off support for the original 1.2K DLP systems -not to mention the fact it had only around half the pixel count of 1080p HDTV.

The bigger problem is there still isn't any drive on the part of Hollywood to embrace the 4K standard. They seem perfectly happy doing everything in 2K and merely using new advances in computer technology to do 2K faster and faster (as well as cheaper and cheaper).

Hollywood doesn't seem in any big hurry to adopt 4K work flow since all that extra detail would only be seen for about a month in just a few first run movie theaters. The studios don't really care all that much about the magic and tradition of commercial movie theaters. They just care about getting the product onto DVD or whatever disc they're going to be selling to viewers at home.

I would actually prefer it if Hollywood did jump from 4K to 6K and so on and so forth. That would push a lot of technological advancement. It would also force film makers to use better methods in filming on 35mm and perhaps even use larger formats like 65mm. The viewers would win in the end by seeing much improved image quality.

Instead, I think we're just going to see most movies geared very much for display on a 1080p HDTV for the foreseeable future.

The only thing in the home that could force standards to go higher is computer monitors of increasing size and resolution. The gaming industry is competing pretty hard against the movie industry (as well as stealing many of the best and brightest computer animators and engineers). We'll certainly see "4K" computer monitors long before any TV set offers such native resolution. But the increasing importance of computers in entertainment and the factor of monitors working double purposes as both TVs and computer monitors may drive those resolution standards higher in the long run.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-05-2007 12:29 PM

I saw my first digital screening of a movie with real people in it (as opposed to a computer animated film) about a month ago. It was "Georgia Rule" at a Carmike here in Montana.

While the picture looked excellent to me, I can see what the anti-digital people are getting at. The picture if anything was TOO perfect. There were none of the tiny anomolies of film, and no I'm not talking about dirt and scratches. I can't quite pull off the technical words to describe what I was feeling as I watched it, but it didn't have the LIFE of film. To me at least, it's not as much to do with the quality of the picture (which looked fine to me) as it is with the sterileness of it. So I think I get what all of you anti-digital guys are yelling about.

But I have yet to hear any "civilian" person (not in the business or closely connected to it) say they don't like it. My wife said it looked awesome. A couple of friends who have been to the digi-Carmikes say the new picture looks great. Apparently in order to dislike digital, you have to be in the film business or maybe a reviewer, or somebody who sees a couple of hundred movies a year.

So talk about being between a rock and a hard place here. To the general public, it certainly is an improvement to them over what they're used to. I can see why they'd think it looks better, even though with my film-seasoned eyes, I know there's something missing.

| IP: Logged

David Graves
Film Handler

Posts: 38
From: Cocoa, FL
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 06-11-2007 02:17 AM

Someone wrote a great article about this (for the life of me I can't find it), suggesting that the thing that was missing was the lag time in the 48fps of film where the shutter is closed. It seems to lull people into a dream state, and after watching a lot of digital I kind of agree- whereas I can sit back and fall into a film, with digital, I just feel a little on edge the whole time, kind of like I really need a cigarette or something.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-11-2007 10:04 AM

I just said this in another post about [dlp]

in the Film Handler's Forum. The main thing I see missing in digitally projected shows is that hint of real film grain swirling and dancing around on the screen. When really good film projection is dialed in to its sharpest level of focus you can see that on even the smoothest looking film prints. You don't normally see any film grain at all in digital projection unless it has been artificially added into the image via some "add noise" digital effects filter.

Viewers also don't hear the very faint rattle of the projector shutter tapping away up in the booth. Not that viewers should be hearing that in the first place, but it seems like [dlp]

makes the auditoriums a little more eerily quiet.

There's also little if any light fall off at the corners. The Konica Minolta lenses used on those Christie CP2000 projectors are a lot bigger than the Schneider lenses I saw previously used. The image is more uniformly bright. While that might be a plus, it also draws more of a similarity with what people are used to seeing with television displays.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-11-2007 10:20 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
that hint of real film grain swirling and dancing around on the screen.

Bobby - you nailed it. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-11-2007 10:39 AM

The audience, viewer would not mind if it was either Film or Digital. Someone in the industry though surely does mind. I can clearly undestand the benefits to both the exhibitioner and the distributor when it comes to Digital Cinema. But as with any advanced electronic like a PC, unfortunately it will not stop developing up to the point were people will be scrapping a years old equipment to purchase the "new" technology. That is why I am so against Digital cinema. I have a saying with all the projectionists in cyprus going something like "Mihani mes ta ladia hilia hronia tha se parei" which is translated in "A Machine build in oil will last for a thousand years".
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 06-12-2007 03:23 AM

quote:
suggesting that the thing that was missing was the lag time in the 48fps of film where the shutter is closed. It seems to lull people into a dream state,

The fact that the cinema screen is blank / black 55 - 60% of the time, really must make a difference when it comes to eye fatigue, Its no secret that you are more likely to fall asleep while watching tv rather than a 35mm screen. DLP 100% constant mirror system perhaps means that filmmakers will have to work harder to keep the audience awake?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-12-2007 09:44 AM

If movie studios really want to keep audiences awake they should try making a lot fewer sequels.

Persistence of vision makes a lot of the flicker in film projection almost imperceptible. The same principal does a lot to mask ways the TV screen is refreshed/redrawn when watching video or looking at computer based content.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
But as with any advanced electronic like a PC, unfortunately it will not stop developing up to the point were people will be scrapping a years old equipment to purchase the "new" technology.

The DCI standards do more to address backward compatibility. I don't think movie theaters are going to be switching out newly purchased 2K projectors any time soon. However, I certainly would not expect them to have anywhere near the life span of a well built 35mm projector. A 10 to 15 year life span for a Christie CP2000 projector might seem about right or perhaps a tad bit generous. But they're not going to be switched out in a mere 5 years like the first generation of DLP systems.

Computer technology is going to continue advancing at a relentless pace. I constantly complain about the "tyranny of 2K" and how Hollywood ought to be trying harder to push boundaries of creativity and technology. At some point the advances in hardware will be sufficient where any major studio will have to work in 4K or even higher resolution standards.

Likewise, at some point, the technology in digital projection is going to mature enough that any 35mm-based theaters still able to hold out will finally want to convert. There are merits to avoiding 2K-based projectors and holding out for something better, provided your theater is showing "film done right" and able to show at least some movies not already reduced to 2K digital intermediate in post production.

These changes happening now are kind of minor compared to what I think may be taking place in more than just the entertainment industry in just a few years.

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-12-2007 11:18 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
But they're not going to be switched out in a mere 5 years like the first generation of DLP systems.

Here is were people start contradicting themselves. Even though you are suggesting that the 2K won't be changed any time soon, the first generation HAD to change after 5 years. Wait 5 years and you will see. I am not against Digital cinema as a mean. I am against it mostly because is a ripoff to the exhibitor who will be forced to change the equipment he buys today after 5 or 6 years. I'd rather have the studios paying more for print costs for a film projector which will last forever.
Demetris

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 06-12-2007 03:21 PM

I'm not contradicting myself at all. The first generation of digital projectors had to change for very obvious reasons. The pixel count was far too low, barely half the pixel count of 1080p HDTV and 2K digital intermediates. The data run on those old systems was not very secure or even secure at all. The video encoding standards on some of those old 1.2K standard movies was crap.

The 2K systems will indeed stick around for a lot longer than five years for a number of reasons. The video encoding standards are a lot better. DCI compliant 4K material can play on 2K machines. The movie data is a lot more secure. The 2K resolution standard is very well entrenched in Hollywood.

Hollywood has been doing the vast majority of all its CGI visual effects work, CGI animation and digital intermediate work in the 2K level for a really long time. Hollywood is also showing very little indication at all that it intends to abandon that old 2K format.

Very simply put: if the final render of a movie is merely 2K then what is the point of even showing it on 35mm or a 4K projector or anything better than that? It is still only a 2K image regardless of how it is blown up. It's a huge waste of emulsion to blast up 2K content to IMAX. Just freaking stupid.

The highly shortened windows of release between commercial theaters and home video will only do more to convince movie studios to keep vomiting out their content in mere 2K resolution.

The growing trend of movie producers and directors embracing video cameras as a means to make movies will do even more to enforce that low 2K standard.

I'm not satisfied with the 2K standard. Hollywood should be using all the technology advances that have been happening to push quality standards a lot higher. But they are not doing that. Instead, they are using the increased muscle power in computing to merely save money by rendering things in 2K even faster.

quote: Demetris Thoupis
I am against it mostly because is a ripoff to the exhibitor who will be forced to change the equipment he buys today after 5 or 6 years.

Any movie theater operator who simply buys a digital cinema system outright is making a stupid mistake.

Companies like Carmike Cinemas are using their large number of screens to negotiate better terms on leasing the equipment, service agreements and getting movie studios to pony up a good amount of the cost on the hardware.

The movie studios would still be saving money if they paid 100% of the cost on the digital projection systems. That seems fair to me since the studios are taking just about all the money from the box office anyway.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-13-2007 10:21 AM

The Landmark will be featuring a 4K digital presentation of the Stanley Kubrick classic Dr. Strangelove that recently underwent a 4K digital restoration starting this Friday.

Link #1

Link #2

[ 06-13-2007, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-13-2007 05:48 PM

Wasn't it Landmark that was crowing about their DeeCinema installations....but they were all 2K Christies, not 4K Sony's, were they not? So, if that is correct, then it's not a 4K digital presentation, but a 2K presentation of the 4K restoration.

Landmark would be better off showing the prints struck from the 4K digital master rather than the half rez 2K down conversion. Since film has the resolution capable of the equivalent of 4K and beyond, if they ran one of the new Sony prints, they would be better off. Oh....I forgot -- the took out their Ultra High Resolution film projectors. So sad.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 06-13-2007 06:14 PM

Frank, I guess you did not get the memo.

But Landmark's Sunshine Complex in Manhattan has had two Sony 4K projectors for about a year now. And they are equipped in other select markets too with the Sony projectors. I've been running a Sony 4K for a year now.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

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.