Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Projector Imager Areas and DCI Compliance

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Projector Imager Areas and DCI Compliance (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Projector Imager Areas and DCI Compliance

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-09-2009 09:39 AM

quote: Julio Roberto
True scope is probably heading a slow but sure death.

Now I think you've gone off the deep end! Since the emergence of D-Cinema there seem to have been many more scope films. Scope done either way actually looks very very good if it is done properly. There are advantages and disadvantages of both types of scope filming.

What you feed into the D-Cinema projector you get back out so if the source looks bad so will the projected image. Seeing any type of widespread 4K in my lifetime or yours is extremely doubtful as 2K is more than sufficient for 89% of all installations. The biggest area of improvement that can still be done is in projection lenses. The typical zooms being used are good but not great.

quote: Steve Guttag
Just because the SMPTE codifies a standard does not require anyone to follow it.

Actually the anamorphic I pulled last week was very sharp so I can't knock it for that but suffered from sone pretty bad flare.

Well, SMPTE has done very little with D-Cinema specs... it's been mainly DCI that has set the tone and it's who the studios now look to for the specs. So if DCI does outlaw anamorphics, and they do not favor them, then you're going to have to come up with a heck of a story to tell your customer that his 8K lens is no longer usable and that he has to purchase a new 6k zoom lens to be able to play Disney.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-09-2009 09:55 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
A popular misconception is that the SMPTE (or other engineering societies) have the power of law or some form of enforcement.

I sincerely hope my own posts did not convey that impression. However, a Standard at least provides an agreed reference, drafted in the spirit of promoting best practice. No doubt one will appear, given that Standards for d-cinema are still evolving, and valuable work has been done to date.

quote: Julio Roberto
True scope is probably heading a slow but sure death.

Don't be so sure! Panavision have re-designed their range of anamorphic lenses:

Panavision G-Series Anamorphic Prime Lenses

quote: Julio Roberto
I just wish they would just all move to 4K, where reduced vertical pixel count is not such a big issue and not using anamorphs allows sharp cheaper optics.

quote: Julio Roberto
4K at 2 times screen height is already at the about 36lp/degree of limit of the human eye of person with perfect vision ... so we just can't see more detail even if it was there. We would have to move closer to see it.

Good points; what about the proposition though that 4K also allows all viewing positions to be catered for in the typical theatre? Not everybody can sit in the "sweet spot", or even in the "sweet range" of positions.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So if DCI does outlaw anamorphics

Do you think that could theoretically be re-visited Mark in the light of 1.26X anamorphics? Are these verboten as well?

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 02-09-2009 11:32 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seeing any type of widespread 4K in my lifetime or yours is extremely doubtful as 2K is more than sufficient for 89% of all installations.

I guess you haven't been to a Sony equipped theater [Smile]

(Just joking)

Now, seriously, most of the equipment today is "4K". Servers can do 4K and 4K is DCI specification today.

The only real problem for not having 4K is that TI can not scale their DLP chips to a convinient size at 4K. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and all DCI projectors would be 4K and if I ever came to this forum to defend 2K was fine I'm sure more than one of you would attack me saying I was crazy and that 2K was barely bettter than your $1000 home TV.

4K adquisition and DI is FASTly coming to Hollywood. Only thing really holding it back a little is that exhibition is mostly 2K thanks to TI having a foothold and others not seeing 4K technology (i.e. GLV) as profitable for this market.

If technology allowed for a high-brightness $50k 4K digital projector, in a couple of years everything DCI would be 4K.

Not saying that, indeed, 2K is fine enough for most situations.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Now I think you've gone off the deep end! Since the emergence of D-Cinema there seem to have been many more scope films. Scope done either way actually looks very very good if it is done properly. There are advantages and disadvantages of both types of scope filming.

Of course, I meant TRUE scope as you quoted me (i.e. anamorphic originated 35mm). I showed that out of the current top 20 BO, hardly 2 or 3 films are true Scope. And I also said that the "death" would be slow, not saying it's going to dissapear overnight.

Still, I stand by my statement that TRUE scope (as opposed to digital scope or Super35) is a minority today and will continue to diminish somewhat quickly as better digital cameras show up at Hollywood's doorstep in the next years. "FAKE" scope is alive and well, thank you, as you said, Mark, probably even on the rise.

Current Top BO in order:

-He's Just Not That Into You (True Scope)
-Taken (Digital Genesis 4K and 3perf super35)
-Coraline (digital cameras)
-Pink Panther (flat)
-Mall cop (Digital Genesis 4K)
-Push (super35)
-Slumdog (digital SI 2K and 3perf Super35)
-Torino (True Scope)
-Uninvited (flat)
-Hotel for Dogs (flat)
-Underworld (Digital Genesis 4K)
-New in Town (Flat)
-Curious Benjamin Button (Digital Viper, 3-perf Super35)
-The reader (Flat)
-The Wrestler (Super 16mm)
-My Bloody Valentine (Digital RED 4K)
-Revolutionary Road (Super35, 4K DI)
-Bride Wars (Flat)
-Defiance (Super35)

You can mark next year, 2010, as the BEGINNING of the death of True (anamorphic adquired) Scope. Do you wanna bet? I'll put good money into it if you want ... The bet would be that less than 15% of all the films made in 2011, two years from now, would be true (anamorphic) Scope. Heck, I'll even win that bet today and the digital revolution is just starting [Wink]

So anarmophic 2K, today, would only have a resolution advantage (about 20% in one direction only) for 2 of the more important films currently being shown in theaters, if we don't count those originating in 4K digital.

My point, once again, is that any "improvements" etc on 2K are fine with me, but that the whole 2K thing should just be scrapped and go straight to 4K if it was possible.

Wait. I keep forgetting it is possible with Sony [Wink]

We must all agree that, while basically fine, it's kind of weird to project a (scope) movie at only 2048 x 858 on a 70' screen when we are watching Smallville at home for free at 1920 x 1080 in a 46" TV ...

That's 1.75 Megapixel in the theater watching Torino for $10 ticket against 2.07 Megapixel at home watching American Idol for free ... [Roll Eyes]

Something is wrong here.

[ 02-09-2009, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.