Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Cinema = The death of theaters?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Digital Cinema = The death of theaters? (Page 9)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Author

Topic: Digital Cinema = The death of theaters?

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 02:44 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
I think the only thing that is not automated is the change between 2D and 3D on the player end because Dolby hasn't allowed for that to be automated.

And seriously...WTF? Why keep this out of the Auto configuration option? It can be a real pain in the ass.

We're screening Megamind 3D and Harry Potter 2D right now sharing a screen...and we have to make this adjustment every session why???

Come on Dolby...please think about this and include it in the next software upgrade.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-01-2010 03:35 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
I think the only thing that is not automated is the change between 2D and 3D on the player end because Dolby hasn't allowed for that to be automated.

It sounds like Dolby needs to get their shit in gear!

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-01-2010 05:53 PM

Actually you can very easily automate the Dolby filter wheel mechanism to drop in or out of the light path. Perhaps not their server but very definately the filter wheel...

FWIW: Master Image is bringing their 3-D units up to DCI specs... Not sure what that means but I will know next week and let you all know... with pictures!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 05:55 PM

Oh, I think the whole DCI is way behind the times...

There should be metadata on the clips themselves so that the clip sets the format (picture and sound). Or, at the very least, the FEATURE should set the picture format for everything in the show. There should not need to be ANY human involvement on selecting the proper format once a system is set up (which macros/channels/titles correspond to what...heck I would be all for DCI defining standardized response strings where the projector could TELL the player which are the formats to use for DCP content).

It is fine to have a manual back up for every function but seriously...there is no need to have any aspect of showing a DCP require human intervention (and potential screw ups).

-Steve

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 06:17 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Or, at the very least, the FEATURE should set the picture format for everything in the show.

That would not work here. We play 1.85 ads and some trailers then go out to scope for the (trailer and/or) feature.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-01-2010 07:54 PM

Most would not do that due to the time it takes to switch between flat and scope in DCinema...unless the lens does not need to move at all. Otherwise it could be upwards of a 15 second ordeal during a performance.

However, I'm good with the clips setting the format too. I think the systems should be configurable so that you can have what you want automated or run manual. I just don't get why there isn't metadata being used to ensure the correct picture and sound formats are selected.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 12-01-2010 08:36 PM

So why DON'T the clips set the format? Why would you ever want to play a clip in the wrong format?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-02-2010 12:07 AM

Brad said that would be bad. It might have even been in this thread but I am too lazy and useless to look for it.

Personally, I think it would be good. Each clip can have a tag with the aspect ratio (or simply FLAT or SCOPE). I think Brad mentioned something about how the things can be set up so any "channel" (whatever that is) can be set for anything. This issue can be solved with "channel" (whatever that is) labels. One "channel" (whatever that is) is labeled FLAT and another SCOPE (or whatever). The server/projector/automation simply matches the "channel" (whatever that is) and the clip. Problem solved! That was easy. You'd be able to program a whole bunch o' shit before your feature and not even worry or care if it is the right format because it will swing back and forth to wherever it needs to be. Too bad nobody seems to have this feature yet. Seriously, weren't actual computer programmers even involved in the creation of all this? You would think that they would have thought of this.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 12-02-2010 12:34 AM

Probably too many "suits" involved and not enough "geeks" would be my guess.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-02-2010 01:08 AM

You're probably right. I imagine the programmers were hired with a "Make it do this and only this, do not suggest anything because we are too cheap to pay you for it" type of attitude.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-02-2010 02:51 AM

quote: John Wilson
That would not work here. We play 1.85 ads and some trailers then go out to scope for the (trailer and/or) feature.

Same here. With side masking auditoriums, IMHO this produces a better presentation and also brings about other nice benefits such as only needing to keep HALF of the trailers tying up space on the servers. It also eliminates the concern of matching trailer formats to the feature.

quote: Steve Guttag
Most would not do that due to the time it takes to switch between flat and scope in DCinema...unless the lens does not need to move at all. Otherwise it could be upwards of a 15 second ordeal during a performance.

Uh oh, I think Steve started smoking some of that I-30 stuff. 15 seconds??? Where are you getting this number from? As an example, the current projectors from Christie can switch lens positions in right at one second.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-02-2010 04:09 AM

Brad...we don't have I-30 here...

But I said UPWARDS of 15-seconds...some are definitely faster than that. However, some of the machines, including most all of the series 1s, regardless of manufacture, take at least 10-seconds to move the lens (zoom, focus, shift). The series 2s from Barco and Christie are notably faster than the series 1s from a year ago. NEC still isn't too fast...focus being the last thing to come in on them. The way some zoom/shift is also not as pleasing on screen...they go to 0,0 first and then move the lens to the new position...leaving the audience to see the whole process unless you run some blank and then leave them in the dark for that period. It isn't graceful.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010

posted 12-02-2010 12:25 PM

Next step is installing a HAL 9000 computer to more easily facilitate worker productivity in the concession stand.

You guys all bitch about a lack of "projection done right," then want to relegate it all to technology.

There is a REASON movies are still focused by hand, cranes mostly still operated by hand, focus marks still set with tape, takes still written down by hand.

Automation is easier, sure, but the headaches caused by one automation malfunction far outweigh the benefits of walking your lazy ass down from one end of the booth and making sure the movie is set to the proper display type and hitting PLAY.

When booths are all digital, there is more incentive to automate, but you'll still be pulling refunds out the ass if something goes wrong and someone has to run up there instead of having a dedicated operator.

My first film processor was a "high tech" model (for 1983) with an automated arm that was controlled by a light-sensitive e-prom chip. Guess how much more headaches I had with that thing than if I had just hand-processed (latter would have been more efficient too!) The thing would always act up, forget what part of the cycle it was on, and redunk the film in the developer after bleaching, with a roll of film with a wedding garter toss shot on it, too. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 12-02-2010 12:52 PM

quote: Jonathan Smith
You guys all bitch about a lack of "projection done right," then want to relegate it all to technology.

Dude, there is a huge difference between things that just make sense to automate, as opposed to things that need to be done by hand for best results.

You're preaching to the choir here. None of us here are "set and forget" projectionists.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 12-02-2010 02:23 PM

quote: Jonathan Smith
takes still written down by hand.

Guess you haven't seen the digital slate boards.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

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.