|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Best 3D for a HUGE screen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-04-2011 08:27 AM
Although this may seem counter-intuitive, has any consideration been given to the idea of reducing the current screen size, Jake?
There is considerable flexibility in design standards regarding viewing angles. As a former IMAX screen, I'm guessing the horizontal viewing angle from the rear seat of your theatre is / was 45 degrees. However one can reduce that down to 30 degrees, for example, and still provide a high-quality viewing experience.
Even a moderate reduction in screen size should open up a much greater range of equipment choices, especially where cost is a consideration.
It may also allow for improvements to the screen design, e.g. introduce an attractive proscenium, or even tabs.
It's a different approach, which as others have implied, recognises that trying to fill a former IMAX screen to an acceptable level of quality without actually using 15-70mm film is difficult and costly.
[EDIT: Apologies to Frank Angel, who also made this point earlier - I'd missed it]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler
Posts: 268
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-03-2012 02:52 PM
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m in a similar situation as the OP now and it seemed natural to continue the discussion here.
Quoting Steve’s wonderfully insightful post from the first page of this thread:
quote: Steve Guttag
Using a single projector and Dolby 3D...you will need 125,546 lumens to get Dolby 3D in spec. for your Scope image.
Was that calculation based on Dolby’s official recommendations? Just curious, since I haven’t actually seen those.
Also, later in the same post you mentioned that with XpanD ”you are starting out needing 70,300 lumens on a matte white”. The numbers that I’ve seen would suggest that Dolby only needs about 50 % more light than XpanD to get the same amount of light through to the viewer’s eyes – but obviously you’re using different specs?
quote:
Use anamorphics (and I highly recommend them for side-masked screens for Scope) and you are down to just 43,500 Lumens.
…
Use a 1.4 gain pearl and you are down to 26,100
Another maths question, and possibly a stupid one: Shouldn’t that be 43,500 / 1.4 = 31,100 lumens? Or am I missing something?
Concerning dual projector XpanD: the option does sound tempting just for the light efficiency, but I’d really like to see how well the alignment can be made to work. It’s hard to imagine that such a setup wouldn’t hurt resolution, particularly in a short-throw situation such as mine.
Perhaps I should visit a dual XpanD venue to check it out myself. Someone mentioned that there’s one in Italy – anybody know of others in Europe?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-03-2012 05:30 PM
Antti,
Yep, that was bad math on my part...it seems like I multiplied by .6 rather than divide by 1.4...they are NOT the same thing...like spell check...I don't always check my work on these sorts of posts...I tend to move fast.
As to XpanD, I have the least amount of real-world experience with it. They claim 17% efficient on the X101 and 37% efficient on the X103c (the newer glasses). I don't buy into the 37% one as I JUST put in a system and it did not yield 37% though put. When I did those calculations, I either was looking off a handy sheet or used a nominal 15% (which is what I have used for Real-D Z-screen and Master Image though Master Image can get higher...if the disc is clean).
I've gotten my math a bit more automated now so it shouldn't have those sorts of errors in the future.
Dual projector XpanD is probably not a great option since what you would really have to do is precisely overlap two images...it will be impossible to get it perfect and that will come off of resolution. Real-D can't do it with the XL but it does get close and you are never going to to get two projectors with lenses that close.
Dual projector Dolby or Polarization is another story. Each eye is coming out of a different projector...mis alignment does not come off of resolution but off of 3D accuracy and possible eye strain if you are substantially off. With this sort of dual projector you get a big boost in light too since there is no longer a "dark" time...both images are always on-screen.
Anamorphics in the the Series 2 era. Yes, you can use an anamorphic with any series 2 projector HOWEVER, Barco does not presently make a mount for their projectors. The software that handles the anamorphic part is in the TI engine so it is intrinsic to all DLPs. In fact, if you have a Kinoton projector with a Barco light engine and even Barco software, you will see they have the anamorphic factor window available. If you wanted to add an anamorphic to your Barco (and will make your own mount or adapt another mount), then set the anamorphic factor using the DLP ICP program and save the screen file there. You can call that file from the Macros however. Barco is clearly hedging their bets...note the 5-pin XLR connector on the Cinema Controller module...if you check the pin-out...it conforms to their Anamorphic connector as used on the DP100, DP3000. By all means, pressure them into making anamorphic available again...and encourage people that have wider scope screens to USE them (that is what really will drive the issue).
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Antti Nayha
Master Film Handler
Posts: 268
From: Helsinki, Finland
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-04-2012 05:05 AM
OK, thanks for the clarification, Steve!
quote: Steve Guttag
As to XpanD, I have the least amount of real-world experience with it. They claim 17% efficient on the X101 and 37% efficient on the X103c (the newer glasses).
XpanD is really popular in Finland; their market share is something like 85 % or even more. The rest is mostly Dolby with a couple of Panavision screens thrown in. There are no RealD or Masterimage installations that I know of – we’re not big on silver screens.
The way I’ve come to understand it:
XpanD X101 = 34 % glasses efficiency = ~17 % total efficiency
XpanD X103 = 37 % glasses efficiency = ~18 % total efficiency
So the actual glass will let 34 or 37 % of the light through when open – but since each eye is closed half of the time, you’ll have to halve the figure to get the total efficiency. There’s also the dark time, which shouldn’t affect the result by more than a percent or two.
It has been stated that Dolby’s efficiency is around 12 %, so I’ve been basing my ”Dolby vs XpanD" calculations on that.
I’m generally aiming for a 3D light level of 6–7 foot-lamberts, instead of the Hollywood-recommended 4.5 fL. People (including me) just seem to prefer it a tad brighter, and black levels and contrast are still acceptable at 6–7 fL.
So when using XpanD, I’m generally aiming for a peak light level reading of 40 foot-lamberts on the screen (measured using 2D, since 3D measuring is a bit tricky). With an efficiency of 17 %, that becomes 6.8 fL.
It might just be that with this giant-screen installation I’m going to have to compromise on those levels…
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic