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 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: AMC in Toronto opens with all 4k Sonys Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-02-2008 07:05 AM                     4K@48fps has been obvious to me for some time. If some film projector comopatability is downplayed we really shoud work towards 4K@60fps. I agree that higher frame rate is a good idea but do you think about real 3D? I have not seen it myself off a screen. Do you prefer a good 2D image with good depth over 3D?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-02-2008 08:37 AM                     An interesting tidbit about the last NAB convention where Sony blew another one of their demos. They were set up to run a 3-D demo specially filmed for Sony on their large Sony 4K projector... Of course something went wrong and they ended up running their demo on the stacked pair of Christies that was also set up for a demo... I also find it interesting that no one could tell it was running and being projected in 2K! Mark  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-02-2008 09:06 AM                     quote: Mattias Ohlson 4K@48fps has been obvious to me for some time. If some film projector comopatability is downplayed we really shoud work towards 4K@60fps. While 60fps was great in 70mm Showscan, I think it's a pipe dream for new movies. For the time being, 60fps content is going to be confined to certain 720p broadcast sports programs. A few people have been promoting the 48fps concept in recent years, specifically with the "MaxiVision" system. But it has gone nowhere. The problem is getting movie productions to use the process. Any 48fps projection format is absolutely superfluous unless it has truly native 48fps produced movies to show. The movie industry couldn't even move to 30fps. I think one of the reasons for the resistance is it's easier to shoot movies in 24fps. Exposure times per frame can be longer for certain kinds of camera shots. By doubling the frame rate the maximum exposure time is cut in half and some flexibility in choice of lenses and film stocks (or video camera settings) will be taken away in that. It should also be pointed out James Cameron is shooting his movie for 3D, hence the "48fps" term. I doubt if he is doing 48fps for both camera/eye views. I doubt if any d-cinema theater is going to get a 96fps file.  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 05-02-2008 11:41 AM                        Are the current Digital Cinema projectors and servers capable of running a source file done in frame rates higher than 24fps? For example, could Pixar render Wall-E at 30fps or 48fps and have it play properly?  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-02-2008 02:42 PM                     @Bobby Henderson Mr Cameron had to compromize and do 2k stereoscopic at 24fps which would be 48fps non stereoscopic. What I found interesting in the interview was that one works actively with the interocular distance to decide what level of 3D effect is desired. It was pointed out that the picture quality aim was to see into the picture and not se objects coming out of the display. Mr Cameron would have preferred to go 48fps 2k steroscopic. The exposure time changes following 48fps is the reason we get a sharper picture. I guess even better lighting will be required or improved cameras/ film stocks. 2K is ok but is anyone actually thinking that is where we say enough is enough? Information says TI will be satisfied to stay with 2k at least for a couple of years more.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-04-2008 05:46 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson I doubt if any d-cinema theater is going to get a 96fps file. The formatter boards cannot run at that speed so thats not going to happen. At 48fps the formatters are about maxed out. It has more to do with the on board memory speed capabilities than it does the DLP chips. Mark  |  IP: Logged Mattias Ohlson Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Falun, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-05-2008 10:56 AM                     Mark G. I have read posts saying the latest 0.98 inch digital cineam dmds can be driven at 144fps. Perhaps higher bit depth sources that you work with set a lower limit on fps. Since I am not good at posting links to and the press release I can just say that you can google for JVC´s new 8k4k panel.  |  IP: Logged David Zylstra Master Film Handler Posts: 432 From: Novi, MI, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-05-2008 12:03 PM                     I've been told that the 1.2" chip can handle 120hz, and for RealD triple flash it is actually being driven at 144hz - but the picture has to be scaled down in order to not overload the processing (i.e. I understand there is a pixel count limitation at this speed?). Presumably the .98 chip does not have a processing problem at 144hz, but this chip is limited in lumen output due to heat issues (i.e. lamp size limit). I have not heard if RealD or Dolby has any issues with the Sony SXRD chip.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-05-2008 12:32 PM                        The only issue I've recently heard about with the SXRD imagers is that some of the really picky screening rooms in Hollywood that have these installed are not happy with their color performance. Something about just enough inconsistency in color rendering that makes critical film grading clients not trust the machine. For use in a regular theater they are probably fine, though not enough of them have been installed long enough in day-to-day operations to have a consensus about them yet.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-05-2008 03:43 PM                     quote: Mattias Ohlson Mr Cameron had to compromize and do 2k stereoscopic at 24fps which would be 48fps non stereoscopic. With native 3D production there is no option to combine the two camera/eye views for one single 48fps view. You either use both 24fps camera/eye views for 3D or just only one of the camera/eye views for 24fps 2D. If you combine both views together you'll have some unwatchable, blurry soup on the screen. quote: David Zylstra I've been told that the 1.2" chip can handle 120hz, and for RealD triple flash it is actually being driven at 144hz - but the picture has to be scaled down in order to not overload the processing (i.e. I understand there is a pixel count limitation at this speed?). Real D does work at 144Hz for the triple flash operation. I've heard about the 3D picture being set smaller on the 2K chip to give it a bit of pad, but I don't think it is due to processor limitations. I'm pretty sure the "pad" around the picture is there for 3D system alignment. Nevertheless, the shows are a bit less than 2K. I saw one table Disney put out for Meet the Robinsons but don't remember the pixel dimensions it listed.  |  IP: Logged David Zylstra Master Film Handler Posts: 432 From: Novi, MI, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-05-2008 08:10 PM                     there is some pad around the frame, but with a source that is close to 1080X1998 it needs to be scaled down to less than the 858 scope height - I first learned about this when I asked why we could not scale the flat picture to fit the screen instead of adjust the lens out to fit the image to the picture instead of scale it to fit within the projected area on our single lens solution and the answer was that there was not enough horsepower to run that many pixels at 144hz. I had a recent discussion with RealD about it and even though we are eventually getting the Christie WAC lens to project flat at full pixel count we have to have the WAC lens in place to run 3D flat at the old resolution. I admit I may be completely wrong, but it means I have misunderstood 3-4 people who understand the issue much better than I. When I'm in tomorrow I'll check our RealD settings to see what they are set to scale from and to.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-06-2008 02:15 AM                     Yes, the smaller the image on the DMD the faster the formatters can go because you're processing so much less informaton but then you get down to a Super 16 sized area that you're using on the DMD's so you're not left with much of anything. Not much point to it then. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.