Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC in Toronto opens with all 4k Sonys

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » AMC in Toronto opens with all 4k Sonys (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: AMC in Toronto opens with all 4k Sonys

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 04-01-2008 09:18 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also, there have not been that many actual 4K releases... just a handful as far as I know.

Ironically, that kinda puts 4K digital releases in the same category as 8 channel sound mixes.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-01-2008 05:06 PM

"Ironically, that kinda puts 4K digital releases in the same category as 8 channel sound mixes."

Interesting point. Some of the problems with 8-channel sound are:

The fold-down to 5.1 may not sound great [enough]
They require specialized extra work, not many sound designers are willing [able?] to bother
DTS XD10/XD10P notwithstanding, their market is not growing
Very small deployed base

Which of these map to digital cinema?
Sure, you've got to use more expensive equipment to scan and process, but basically it scales up geometrically. There isn't much additional work for the humans, or stuff they have to do differently.

On the other hand, there might be more work for the production designer -- just like in 70mm the PD has to make the sets more detailed, so we hear they need to do the same for HD digital over SD digital. And so one imagines the same applies to 4k -- if it's going to look good at 4k, more work may be required on the set. [Maybe?]

No problem with the fold-down from 4k to 2k, and the 4k market is definitely growing right now, not shrinking...

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

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

posted 04-02-2008 02:32 PM

It'll be interesting to see if 4K becomes a new standard making 2K obsolete, or if 4K has a short run then fades away, or if we end up with two standards. I could envision a scenario having two standards like we used to have with film (35mm & 70mm).

| IP: Logged

Clint Koch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1435
From: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-02-2008 02:54 PM

From what I have heard they have already started working on 8K with the intention of going up to 16K or more. Maybe only rumors yet that is what I have heard.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-02-2008 07:58 PM

Come on now Clint... We know your REAL source of information at work is probably well into development of one of those giganto pixel formats. Man, can you imagine the data rate..... [Cool]

.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 04-02-2008 10:00 PM

I had exactly the same thought. Clint, you've been holding out.

| IP: Logged

John Joseph Fink
Film Handler

Posts: 60
From: West Hartford, CT
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-05-2008 10:23 AM

Checking over showtimes I noticed Scotiabank and AMC aren't sharing films, leaving Scotiabank (a flagship of Cineplex Entertainment) with only two new movies Shine A Light in IMAX and an indie film, Kenny, while The Ruins and Leatherheads have multiple screens at AMC. (Scotiabank interestingly enough rarely showed a film on multiple screens unless it was expected to open huge). AMC is showing day and date with the upscale Cineplex Varsity (the Varsity and Scotiabank only shared comparatively more upscale studio films). What we have here is the Toronto version of NYC's Empire 25/E-Walk situation with 14 screens (one IMAX) at Scotiabank and 24 at AMC, although it seems as if AMC isn't showing the indies it does at the Empire 25 - leaving them for the Varsity, Caralton and Cumberland.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-05-2008 12:04 PM

8K and 16K would be nice -especially if feature films were getting shot in 65mm or VistaVision. But right now the movie industry can't even kick itself into making 4K post production a common standard.

Most movie productions just keep on using the 2K work flow because it is becoming ever cheaper to use. Computer processing power has continued to increase. We're now at the point where budget priced PCs are coming equipped with quad core processors and the computational ability to handle multiple 1080p bit streams. 4K is actually a quite practical format using current technology. But that also means 2K can be done even faster and even cheaper. So we'll just keep on using 2K. Shit, in another three or four years our desktop CPUs may have 16 or more "cores" and Hollywood will still be pumping out their digital intermediates in 2K.
[Roll Eyes]

quote: Joe Redifer
We have an AMC opening here next week with all digital projection. Not sure if it is all 4k or not. However I do know that $13 a ticket is a great way to get people to stay home and wait for the DVD.

$13 is pretty damned steep for a movie theater ticket price. However, it should be said video rental prices have been rising too.

Dish network now charges $4.99 for pay per view movies in standard definition. High defintion pay per view costs $5.99. The Lawton locations of Hollywood Video and Blockbuster Video charge $4.99 + sales tax for Blu-ray rentals (Hollywood allows you to keep the BD for 5 days). Hastings charges $5.99 ($6.50 with sales tax included) for Blu-ray rentals -you get a $2 credit for bringing back the movie the next day, or can keep it 7 days. Our local Carmike theater charges $6.25 for matinees and $8.50 for evening shows (add $2 more for digital 3D).

Most Blu-ray movies carry a significant premium above standard DVD prices. I was laughing out loud at the prices our FYE store was expecting to get for Blu-ray movies. $39.99? Yeah, thanks. I think I'll point my web browser to Amazon.com. Even there, the price is usually several bucks higher than the same movie on DVD.

quote: Mike Perju
Dalsa has not provided cameras for one or two features so far (none with a wide release) and a few commercials. Maybe he couldn't think of the Genesis camera...

Panavision's Genesis camera isn't even quite 2K. Its native resolution is 1920 X 1080 pixels. Basically, it's a really great HDTV camera. But it sure doesn't lend itself to having its imagery blown up huge on a IMAX screen (like what was done with Superman Returns). Kind of the same look you get from trying to "upconvert" 480p DVD to a big HDTV screen.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 04-25-2008 05:03 PM

Clint
Who are you referring to when you talk about 8k or 16k? If anyone else can respond please feel free to do so.

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 04-25-2008 06:38 PM

Don't know about 8 or 16K, but at the NAB convention here last week Red Digital Cinema was pushing their camera and lens line:

Red Epic - 5K - early 2009
Red One - 4K - available now
Red Scarlet - 3K - early 2009

http://www.red.com

And of course NHK was there again with their 7K UHDTV cameras (modified Ikegami's) - but those are configured for TV production, not D Cinema.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/02_super.html

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 04-25-2008 11:35 PM

Of course, the one key thing that is NOT being mentioned at all it what resolution the Red camera is being used for producing some new projects.

Universal Pictures' summer movie, Wanted is recorded largely using the Red camera system. But at what resolution?

The Red camera has the upward capability of doing 4K. But it also supports lower resolution modes, like 1080p HDTV or 2K. Since Hollywood still loves going through the motions in using that damned 2K format I will by default consider any "digitally mastered" movie to be produced in that fashion unless they specifically say otherwise. There's just been so much use of "good enough" 2K that 4K seems like a very odd thing anymore.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 04-28-2008 06:24 PM

A friend of mine worked on WANTED. He wasn't in the camera department, but he was told that they were shooting in 4K.

Does anyone have a list of 4K releases? I've heard SPIDER-MAN 3 was released in 4K, and I saw it on a 4K projector, and it looked really nice. What else has been released?

| IP: Logged

Clint Koch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1435
From: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-30-2008 04:04 PM

Mattias, I heard it was Sony.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 04-30-2008 05:39 PM

Here's a great quote from James Cameron from a recent Variety online interview which questions the relentless focus on increasing resolutions as a measure of image quality:

quote:
I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate.

Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

The rest of the article is equally valuable. Here's the link:

Cameron Super-charges 3-D (Variety online)

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 04-30-2008 06:28 PM

Regarding a 48fps frame rate, I think Cameron is right about this. Wasn't that the whole idea behind Showscan? If anyone can push this technology to the limit, it will be Cameron.

| 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.