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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » WTH? Quality passable for 4K at 10mbit/s???????? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: WTH? Quality passable for 4K at 10mbit/s???????? Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-28-2009 08:26 AM                     quote: Actually no Mark, I'm not kidding, but I must say your 78 record player sounds like a piece of junk! Hardly... but it is older than all of us in this thread put together!! Geez, You should see the Edison Cylinder Player sitting here....  |  IP: Logged James B Gardiner Film Handler Posts: 91 From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia Registered: Feb 2009 posted 04-29-2009 08:13 AM                     60 fps is the only real solution going forward. All the other frame rates can be derived from that if required. And we are talking about acquisition for post and mastering. From master you derive all the distributables. Also, the current DCI kit can do 60fps with software upgrades. No new hardware. And if we are talking about making DCI kit do better quality the patrons will see. This is one that takes little effort on the millions of dollars already out in the field (Projectors you already installed). Now, this MAY look like video to some, but that's because video looks cleaner and smoother (Interlace) then 24fps film. Ie, it looks more realistic. The development of multi channel sound etc was all about being more realistic. I find it strange how may comment on this as a negative for image quality. I am sure your general movie goer would see it as better. That's what you need to offer them. Your personal opinion, is.. your personal opinion (Of some one who has a romantic love of film). James  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 04-29-2009 09:40 AM                    I have no problems with 60fps either, but don't feel it's the "very best choice". Probably 50fps would be. 1) 60fps is supported worlwide for new equipment. So that's good for the future. 2) But for old analog equipment support, only in 1/4 or the world (NTSC-land), while 50fps in 3/4 (PAL/SECAM-land). 3) 60fps doesn't convert (really) well to 24fps in any way. It needs un-even pulldowns. 50fps converts decently, as it converts to 25fps and from there you can slow it down and keep 1:1 frames. 4) 60fps is a bit high (i.e. expensive) for basically all mechanical equipment (50fps as well, but a bit less, closer to 48fps). Even shooting digital, 60fps demands storage space, bandwidth, compression power, etc that is a bit high. 50fps is a bit more forgiving. 5) DLP projectors have some trouble with 60hz too. They max out at 144hz refresh. Wouldn't accomodate 60hz 3D but at 1 flash (60x3=180hz ... way too high for 144). If they could be slightly improved to max out at 150hz instead of 144hz (probably doable), then it would allow 50x3=150hz. That way, they could at least do 25fps 3D. Right now, it's 24x2x3=144. Close to 25x2x3=150. For 60hz it would be 30x2x3=180 ... too high, I don't think DLP can ever do that w/o contrast reduction. So, anyway. I'm all for 60fps as it is can be supported in newer HD TV's and blu-rays worldwide and has some support for some old TV equipment in the USA and Japan. But for broad old equipment compatibility, as well as 24p support, and new HD equipment worldwide, I think 50fps fits better and it's closer to the cost of 48fps while slightly improving upon it. But whatever. The future will tell. It's too early to even argue about it I don't think I've read half-serious studies on psychological impact of low frame rates (i.e. 24hz) on people's taste for images, but I believe it's a matter of having grown accostumed to it. We see grain in a picture and we tend to ignore it while at the same time recognizing it as a photograph. We see a non-grain digital output from a printer and we think: "this is not a photograph". Until recently. With movies, we see one at 24fps/180º shutter motion and think: "This is a movie like in the theaters". We see one at 60hz interlaced and think: "This is one of those cheap video made-for-TV movies". Why? Because for 50 years that's what we have been "told". Now things are changing. "Video" is "film" and "film" is "video" (i.e. digital intermediates, film print-outs, digital cameras, 16mm 25p TV, DCI 2K DLP, etc). As I've said before, exagerating a bit, soon your kid's birthday party is gonna be shot at 4K with better equipment than Lucas had to shoot the second Star Wars trilogy. Cinematographers insist on keeping the old cinema look because "it works and people like it". Except for Transformers, 24p was way too little for that, you couldn't see squat... But they are starting to find it too limiting. They can't do fast pans or fast motion, much less in 3D. One day, they'll make the jump to a significant improvement, which at least some of us hope it will be either 50 or 60 fps and not 48fps... Then audiences will need to learn that good "theater movies" can also come in video looks. That'll be the day some on this board hope they'll die (just kidding)  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-11-2009 09:10 AM                     I couldn't decide which thread to put this in but this one seemed pretty appropriate. Yesterday my wife and I watched Star Trek played of a Christie CP-2000ZX projector. The auditorium has a silver screen and it is normally used for 3D but since my wife and I don't tend to see the types of movies that have been in 3D this is the first time since the system was installed that we watched anything in that auditorium. This was also the first time that I have seen a D-Cinema presentation with JPEG-2000 compression. We sat about 2 screen heights back and the picture looked great. It looked noticeably better than any film print I've seen other than IMAX. I am talking about standard release prints shown in average to above average multiplexes. It does have a little different "sharper" look than film but it is visually pleasing. Here is the ringing endorsement. My wife who doesn't ever notice anything in a presentation (there could literally be a scratch running the entire move and as long as it wasn't in the middle part of the screen she'll say "what scratch") commented completly unprompted after the movie about the picture. She said "I don't know if you did something to the projector in there but the picture looked really good". This tells me that to 90% of the population a 2K DLP D-Cinema presentation will be a noticeable improvement. Sure if you could do 4K with the same brightness, contrast and color reproduction it would be a bit better depending on where you sit but I can say that 2K seems "good enough" to improve the presentation in almost all auditoriums (unless it's a location that gets EK Showprints and has the absolute top of the line 35mm projectors). I thought the contrast in the dark scenes looked the exact same as it does on 35mm. No muddy gray darkness like some early digital cinema stuff I had watched years ago. The rock steadiness and even brightness gives the picture an IMAX-like look. True 15/70 IMAX has more "punch" to the image because of the increased level of detail but the pefectly solid image really makes a difference in percieved resolution and sharpness.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 05-11-2009 11:23 AM                    I agree with your conclusions. For most people, 2K DCI is perceived as similar or even an improvement over your average 35mm flat (cropped) projection. After a certain distance, they both look very similar. And undoubtely, digital is scratch free and rock solid instead of potentially weavy. It's a decent replacement for 35mm under many situations. For those in the back couple of rows in your average theater, it's totally indistinguishable resolution-wise. Those comparing the level of resolution theoretically obtainable with a 35mm negative to the 2K pixel matrix, are really comparing apples to oranges for your regular scenario. If it weren't because the relatively low pixel fill ratios that show a screen door effect, most wouldn't think the resolution difference is that great. In practical terms, once film has gone through 4 generations during the duplication process and goes through a mechanical projection gate. My thought on the matter: A theoretical 3K system would be a good replacement for 35mm flat movies. 2K is a bit short. 4K would actually be an improvement in practical terms. The main problem with 2K is not that it's "bad" in any way (other than the screen door on many of today's projectors and a tad low resolution), it's just that it's too darned close to what people have in their houses, but blown up to 40 times the size. While home technology continues to improve with i.e. the 1.3a HDMI standard allowing for the transport of 10bits color information at up to 2560×1600 resolution at up to 75fps and "domestic" video cameras starting to surpass HD resolutions, the only thing holding back home systems from matching or surpassing 2K is that the blu-ray standard is fixed at a little lower than it could be. But how long until blu-ray 2.0? SMPTE already issued their report on 3D for the home and they are going to set a standard to allow up to 60 frames/s per eye (that's right, up to 120fps) of full HD (1920x1080). Broadcaster's are already looking into this. Whatever replaces blu-ray in the future hopefully won't make the same mistake to settle for a low common denominator standard w/o room to grow and develop a system with backwards compatiblity but forward thinking to allow for improvement on those purchasing newer equipment while allowing those with older one to watch a reduced-quality version tailored to their capacity. Anyway, 2K is a bit too little a bit too late for "top, professional" level (and prices). Theatres are expected to use it for the next 15 years, while most haven't even purchased it yet. The fear it will happen as with the now obsolete 1.3K projectors is very real. Unfortunately, no DLP 4K solution anywhere in sight and pbbly not ever. Other capable technology at least a couple of years away. Sony being the only alternative at price levels and reliability that may not be the best. So 2K or 35mm. Your choice. I'm sure 90% of the audience can't tell them apart or care enough to really prefer one over the other. Hell, you could be projecting them a blu-ray disc on a 1-DLP HD projector and they would still not care or actually even prefer it ...  |  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.