|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: AMC ETX Digital Review
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-25-2010 09:30 PM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Tom, it's not about how clean the edges are...ANY exposed screen area will not remain black with the varying brightness of images hitting the rest of the screen...and a study on image quality and perception done way back in the 1940's PROVED that the use of black masking improves the perceived contrast ratio and brightness of the images. Since a lot of DLP is short on brightness the masking would be a HUGE benefit compared to the cost of upsized lamps/frequent lamp changes.
You can prove that principle at home with any tv set...if it has black borders put white tape on them (to see how the image loses "snap") or if it has anything but black, mask it off with black and see how much better the image appears to be.
Two great reference books any projection professional should check out are:
Robert A Mitchell's Manual of Practical Projection (1956)
and
James R. Cameron's (No, not the "Titanic" guy) "Motion Picture Projection" (I have the tenth edition, dated 1928)
Both books go deep into theory of optics and other tidbits that today's "projectionists" don't have a clue about. And the principles of optics, shutter timing and blade count, etc. haven't changed with modern film projectors. And optical physics are just as valid for DLP.
Tony, did you see the years that these books were published? One of them is 80 years back...DLP let alone video was not even thought of at that time.
Anyways, the ETX looked like it was projection black bars like dvd. The picture was perfect..contrast, sharpness etc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 10-25-2010 10:04 PM
Tom, you need to slow down and actually read what I wrote instead of jumping the gun with poorly thought-out responses.
Let me highlight the point: quote: Me
Tom, it's not about how clean the edges are...ANY exposed screen area will not remain black with the varying brightness of images hitting the rest of the screen...and a study on image quality and perception done way back in the 1940's PROVED that the use of black masking improves the perceived contrast ratio and brightness of the images. Since a lot of DLP is short on brightness the masking would be a HUGE benefit compared to the cost of upsized lamps/frequent lamp changes.....And the principles of optics, shutter timing and blade count, etc. haven't changed with modern film projectors. And optical physics are just as valid for DLP.
The age of the source and study is irrelevant because OPTICAL PRINCIPLES haven't changed just because of DLP. A good technician looks into the past for information that still has value today.
You are obviously willing to settle for substandard presentation and that's fine. Like I said in another post, if concert-sound and lack of masking gets you there, that's fine, but don't come onto a forum of PROFESSIONALS with decades of experience in the industry and not expect to have your comments challenged.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Lack of masking in ANY cinema, film or DLP, is inexcusable in any venue, especially one where you are paying an extra charge. If you can't see the logic and reality of that then that's just sad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-25-2010 11:25 PM
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
You are obviously willing to settle for substandard presentation and that's fine. Like I said in another post, if concert-sound and lack of masking gets you there, that's fine, but don't come onto a forum of PROFESSIONALS with decades of experience in the industry and not expect to have your comments challenged.
I am not will to settle for substandard presentation. I like to see good presentation and ETX is simply outstanding. I will trust my own eyes and not some so called "professional" who is still referencing manuals published in 1928.
As for the masking, like I said, no need for it. The contrast and sharpness were outstanding. Bryce Dallas Howards face was so clear.
Trust me, I love film. I used to work with it and I am very fond of it, its just that I have realized that I like the ETX presentation better.
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Lack of masking in ANY cinema, film or DLP, is inexcusable in any venue, especially one where you are paying an extra charge. If you can't see the logic and reality of that then that's just sad.
Last night I watched "Never Let Me Go" on film. The screen was good size, the contrast good, I knew it was film as it was not as clear as digital, there was a bit of dirt and some color problems midway through one of the reels. As for the masking, well there was some bleed into the black masking on either side, nothing major but I noticed it...One thing is for certain, film needs masking, I guess that is because of the techinical limitations of the format.
As for masking on digital. I have seen digital presentations with masking and without...either way it made no difference.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 10-26-2010 04:23 AM
I'm sorry, Tom, but I have to agree. No masking is indeed wrong. To me the problem is that you can't project "black". So you can't make the white screen around the image disappear completely. It has nothing to do with how the image is getting to the screen. When you shine something on the screen, the light bounces around the room and stray light shines on the dark part of the screen which is why you can see it even though you're not shining on it directly. It's kind of like when you look up at the moon and can see the dark side. Light from the sun hits the moon, reflects back to Earth, then reflects back to the dark side of the moon lighting it up slightly. So you can see it even though the sun isn't shining directly on it.
When you're showing a movie, you want your screen to disappear. You don't want unused parts of your screen hanging out there around the image so your customers can glance over and see it. You want your customers to forget that they're looking at a screen so they can get more invested, involved and engaged in the story you're telling. To do that you HAVE to mask the screen. Now you personally may think it's cool to be able to see the unused parts of the screen around the image, or you may think that just because it's digital it's ok to see the screen, or that seeing the screen didn't bother you or impede on the quality of the image at all. But the fact is that seeing the screen takes away from the magic. It takes away from the experience. The bottom line is that it's bad showmanship, and that is something that AMC has NEVER understood in the 20+ years that I've worked closely with them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-26-2010 04:25 AM
quote: Joe Redifer
And yes, I do believe you when you say that it looked great to you. But if you put masking on that same screen it would look even better. To me, no masking just seems lazy. AMC does this because they want the screen to appear super-huge when people first walk in. Granted, 55 feet is far from super-huge, it is about the same size of the biggest screens at any random multiplex. I'm not sure how AMC does it, but no masking probably means the image is common width. That's bad. I can't remember which thread it was, but Brad gave an excellent discussion on why is disappoints customers.
I will be attending a theatre close by from now on. The theatre is a converted film-to-digital theatre. It has kept its masking. Although I don't really care all that much as the edges are sharp. Its the Jackson Square six for those who care
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I'm sorry, Tom, but I have to agree. No masking is indeed wrong. To me the problem is that you can't project "black". So you can't make the white screen around the image disappear completely. It has nothing to do with how the image is getting to the screen. When you shine something on the screen, the light bounces around the room and stray light shines on the dark part of the screen which is why you can see it even though you're not shining on it directly. It's kind of like when you look up at the moon and can see the dark side. Light from the sun hits the moon, reflects back to Earth, then reflects back to the dark side of the moon lighting it up slightly. So you can see it even though the sun isn't shining directly on it.
When you're showing a movie, you want your screen to disappear. You don't want unused parts of your screen hanging out there around the image so your customers can glance over and see it. You want your customers to forget that they're looking at a screen so they can get more invested, involved and engaged in the story you're telling. To do that you HAVE to mask the screen. Now you personally may think it's cool to be able to see the unused parts of the screen around the image, or you may think that just because it's digital it's ok to see the screen, or that seeing the screen didn't bother you or impede on the quality of the image at all. But the fact is that seeing the screen takes away from the magic. It takes away from the experience. The bottom line is that it's bad showmanship, and that is something that AMC has NEVER understood in the 20+ years that I've worked closely with them.
I hear what you are saying and understand very well what stray light does to a screen. This is one of the reasons why I flip out when the projectionist leaves the overhead lights on in the projection booth.
But like I said in my review, stray light etc didn't bother me one bit in the AMC ETX, neither did the unused portion of the screen, I noticed it at first then once the movie started, that was it.....I was just very happy that the edges were very sharp.
I will trade a perfectly sharp edge over a little bit of bleed into the masking (like my small gripe with Never Let Me Go last night)
Now for film, it must have masking!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic