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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Refitting for Digital - Scaler options, Sound Processors (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Refitting for Digital - Scaler options, Sound Processors Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-28-2012 07:10 AM                     quote: Dave Macaulay Some Black Magic video cards have 3G SDI but I don't think cinema projectors do. Some IMBs do. And that's probably the only useful place to have them on a series-II. I know that some projectors have 3G spec'd HD-SDI inputs (e.G. Barco), but I doubt you can actually use them 'cinema-style'. Qube recently demonstrated 3G uncompressed 4k playout (Quad 3G). But their intention is not cinema presentation, but grading suites/screening rooms, where DCP generation for 4k IMB previews is an unnecessary and time consuming step. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 11-28-2012 12:53 PM                     Some Black Magic video cards have 3G SDI but I don't think cinema projectors do. --------------------- Dave, The projectors do handle this, in fact. That's why the 2210 can handle DCP (12 bit rgb 444).. So for these dcp ready projectors to handle 444 10-bit through the same dual sdi - no worries. As for the fram rate, I had thought the issue was going to be more disc speed for 2d HFR, eg, use a promise raid in RAID5 for a computer, and you have 450-550 Gbps already... If you switch to Raid0, even faster... Switch to an ssd RAid, nearly 700... Or use an sas card... We switched our Doremi/RAID up to 6 TB to increase speed (hopefully)... Has anyone tested HFR on the Doremi 2k4? Carsten - no official open air wih this projector - too expensive for us to risk!! But we have done open airs with this cinema and another independent cinema.. -mono/stereo sound using 16 mm/35mm/ and a Panasonic 6,000 lumens projectors... pretty good for small crowds, close distances. One group uses a 15,000 lumen projector with an enormous inflatable screen on the lake - if you are interested, I can get details of the materials.. Dave - the 35 mm is really for films which are only on BluRay or 35mm. But unless we get a subsidy for transport, it will be quite difficult to show 35mm. Our cinemateque charges quite a penny for the films...How does your cinema deal with this?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-28-2012 05:17 PM                     2D HFR is possible even with the existing Christie 2210 without ANY HFR firmware or IMB. It's the same as 'standard' 3D. 2*24=48fps. The Doremi needs a certain bandwith from the Raid, but the media block with the specific J2k decoder and the HD-SDI links are the bottleneck. 2D, 3D, and even 4k use the same bandwith, which is no problem with current servers. Only HFR uses twice the bandwith peak (500MBit/s). - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-28-2012 05:21 PM                     Since the D-Cinema dual SDI can not do 24fps 3D 4:4:4 I don't see how it can do 48fps 2D 4:4:4 either, the data rate is the same. I think there's some confusion between "dual SDI" SMPTE 372M which is 3G using two 1.5G SMPTE 292M links, and SMPTE 424M which is 3G over a single SDI cable. The Black Magic card looks to be SMPTE 424M. My understanding is that it will do HFR on two cables, the dual SDI input on a cinema projector is not compatible though. I've never heard of a dual 424 input card although they might exist. There are quad 292 SDI input boards available for "cinema" type projectors but they will not show cinema DCPs because they do not have the link decryptor (the one I saw didn't, anyway) and are used at effects and post production facilities. I'm a technician doing installation and service, not at a specific cinema. In Canada at least the repertory (cinematheque?) houses have digital projection and are using 35mm only for prints they own, get from other places with libraries, or from film archive sources. They have changeover 35mm setups because the archives don't allow platter projection (no cutting and splicing allowed). 35 for first run is on life support here, and will die completely very soon. Some ethnic cinemas run 35mm but I don't know how long that will last. When India or wherever stops making film prints there will be no source for them, the prints are imported (on coreless rolls in a flimsy tin box, but that's another story).  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-29-2012 05:23 AM                     David, clearly I didn't do a good job of explaining before... The reason a conventional dual-link SDI system can't do 3D at 4:4:4 is there are not enough cables. To achieve 4:4:4 color with 1.5GHz SDI (HDSDI) one needs two 1.5GHz cables with the the color set up as 4:2:2 on one and 0:2:2 on the other. For 3D, one only has ONE cable since EACH eye takes up one cable. The issue was not the frame rate is was the lack of cables to output the color space in a conventional 3D mode. In 2D, we have enough cables to represent the full color space and there is enough bandwidth to double the data to 48fps. In fact, it is in the DCI spec that 2D 48fps be supported on all DCI compliant servers. Pulling right from the release notes of Dolby for system 4.3 as it relates to the DSS100/DSP100 (no IMB possible, at this time, or likely ever): quote: DSP100 JPEG 2000 2D: 24, 48 JPEG 2000 3D: 24 MPEG2: 23.98, 24, 25, 29.97, 30 If you look back you'll see 48fps capability has always been there for 2D on any of the major release versions.  |  IP: Logged David Buckley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 525 From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand Registered: Aug 2004 posted 11-29-2012 08:50 PM                        I've never actually seen the Fostex AP series of amps, but Fostex professional oriented kit is generally OK, so if money is tight, I'd hang on to these. Most movie houses seem to prefer QSC amps, and these Foxtex amps will probably be in the same ball park build wise. Crown amps (or most of them, anyway!) are a step up from the QSCs, however, the increased financial investment wont get you any increased returns.  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 11-30-2012 06:47 AM                     David, Thanks for the input on the Fostex. As for Crown versus QSC, on the forum most people seem to think QSC is more reliable, and durable. Do a QSC and Crown search.. We are having sound troubles, so we have thought about switching these. Here's the link on the forum to where I jumped in about amps, sound processors, and speakers - the discussion previous to me was quite interesting: http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f1/t011336/p4.html  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 12-02-2012 12:25 PM                     Back to the 3d questions - is a scaler necessary/useful? Would the Christie SKA -3d limit some of the need for 3d attachments for the Christie 2210? Has anyone seen/used one yet? http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us/cinema/cinema-products/digital-cinema-alternative-content/pages/christie-ska-3d.aspx They are slowly puting up more info on the web - their brochure is litlle to go on... It's dual DVI 16 bit out seems great, even for HFR 2d alternative content - it handles hdmi in, giving Bray 36 bit full on passage. But for DCP content, as discussed, I'm assuming the IMB would still be needed to meet the 500 mbs need.. For independent content, a 600 mbs RAID setup should do, no? or 10-bit rgb video cards - no sdi in, however.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-02-2012 01:00 PM                     If you want good sound, stay away from KCS. They are quite popular in Europe, but Windows 95 was also very popular! Remember that sound is not only speakers, you need a decent acoustic as well. Processors: I can't find anything wrong in the 750. It's just not very versatile: no crossover available and 31 bands graphic EQ only. The QSC DCP looks like a nice product - and I understand that a 750 + a QSC DCM as a crossover/Monitor is more expensive than a DCP100 - which has all you need. But then you need a decent installer capable of using all the features the DCP delivers: if you end up with a DCP and the installer then opens the 31-bands EQ window and ignores all the rest, then you can stick with a 750! Definitely use the 750 - or whatever you end up buying - as your main processor. Feed the old analogue processor into it, flatten all the EQ in the old processor and leave the fader at 7.0 all the time.  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 12-02-2012 01:32 PM                     Hey Marco, thanks for the input. Why don't you like the KCS's? Which speakers would you recommend... By the way, there is a loooong discussion on speakers here, where my sound questions have been wrapped in.. also long dicussions of how to test/set up rooms..Meyers linear, x-curve, etc.. http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011336;p=5#000067 Here's a quote from Steve Guttag in Maryland: "The problem with that statement is that anyone that does measurements knows that a measurement only measures what it is measuring, not everything. In the case of an RTA, you are only "seeing" the volume of each frequency. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what constitutes the sound we hear. Part of the X-curve does try to take into account reverberation (the roll off) but it works (by those that believe it does) because many of the parameters of a theatre are reasonably well known. When the X-curve falls apart is when the room is made poorly such that the x-curve does not reasonably apply. If the RTA was the final word in sound...all speakers that meet the curve should sound identical...and most everyone knows that isn't true. There are many other parameters to perceived audio. THX took this a bit further by ensuring that the room was better made so that RT-60 was in the proper range, the NC level was in the proper range and that the equipment was inherently good. That will have the X-curve work even better. " But no one has yet said how they themselves start with the x-curve in a typical long box with low ceilings and limited acoustics, and finish with great sound - yet : )  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-02-2012 02:54 PM                     Steve is - as always - right. The RTA just sees the amplitude, not the time. It's like driving blind. If the road is straight, you reach the goal. Otherwise you fall down the cliff. The road is the acoustic here Back IT, someone said KCS are as good as others, just not so powerful. I disagree. They are not as powerful AND they don't sound as good. I have plenty of experience with KCS and the difference in sound quality compared with another brand is as clear as sky. HF are limited and dull, they sound like "tupperware" (as Steve says for some EV!) and they break easily. Once, I checked a 18" speaker specifications for a friend. The price list, the datasheet and the label on the speaker itself were showing three different rated wattage!! Subwoofers are noisy and not deep at all. I've see medium sized rooms with 2 dual 18" subs, properly powered and - hopefully I did a good job - properly EQ'd. They simply did not go down as you would expect from a cinema subwoofer (yes, filters in the DCAs were disengaged, only the 20Hz left in the DCM). In similar rooms a couple of Martin Audio 1A would greately outperform the KCS system (BTW: I'm not saying that 2x18" are a proper desing for a medium sized room!) I am not too familiar with QSC for the time being. Had a chance to set up a couple of small systems, the first impression was positive, with a special mention for the little subwoofer - underrated for the room - which despite the low rated power was delivering a very undistorted and deep output.  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 12-02-2012 04:29 PM                     Marco, sounds like they are quite weak. Which would you recommend? Do you know PSI's? WE had an offer them as front replacements. They are 3-way.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-02-2012 04:42 PM                        Speaking of the X-curve, SMPTE had a B-chain study group that did a bunch of measurements of dubbing stages and theaters. Measurements were done using pink noise and correlation techniques to generate an impulse response and frequency response. This work has now been rolled in to a SMPTE technology committee on Cinema Sound Systems. There has been a lot of heated discussion regarding the X-curve. I'm sure there will be more. From my understanding, SMPTE 202 rolls off the highs more in larger auditoriums to compensate for the effects of reverberation in larger auditoriums. Through the years, the reverb delays for certain sized auditoriums has not changed, but the amplitude of the reflected sound has dropped as auditoriums become "deader." Some of the discussion has said that the X-curve is just a pre-emphasis / de-emphasis curve, like that used for FM radio, magnetic tape, etc. Some have pointed out that you can listen to an orchestra in different sized auditoriums, and it always sounds natural without any special eq for each auditorium. Others have shown experimental results of what people expect to hear with various sized images. A larger image should have more bass and a higher level. You don't expect a lot of bass and a lot of sound out of a small TV (or iPhone). Others have pointed out that we have to adjust the sound due to an unnatural combination of what we see and hear. For example, there may be a large closeup of a person speaking. We expect it to sound like they are close to us, even though we are far away in the auditorium. Then, finally, there's the intelligibility of the dialog. Whether it sounds natural or not, the dialog has to be understandable. So, we have a lot of things to consider. For now, 1/3 octave RTA and eq, pink noise, and the X-curve are it. That may change. Those interested in the details may want to join the SMPTE Cinema Sound Systems group. Harold  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-02-2012 04:44 PM                     Personally JBL or Martin Audio. The reason I am not mentioning QSC is only because I haven't got enough experience with them, not because they are not good. And I read on the other thread you are thinking on 1 surround speaker for each of the back surround sides. If you're going in 7.1 please don't! You can't drive a single channel with one speaker in a 14m long room! If you have such a narrow room, then possibly 7.1 would not be recommended, stick with 5.1 instead. If you have space, you definitely need more than one speaker for each back side.  |  IP: Logged Mark Pasquesi Film Handler Posts: 28 From: Geneva, Geneva Canton, Switzerland Registered: Sep 2012 posted 12-10-2012 09:07 PM                     Harold, Good points on the SMPTE.. I work in another cinema where the SMPTE was just done - and the USL JSD 80 bugs and loses it : ( Fortunately, we have the file on a small portable... So, since the SMPTE work, the sound distribution is much better.. But, we have a dip noticed between 2k-12,000k by 3 mixers so far... and if we look at the curve - yes, these are reduced... as aquick test, I punched it up a bit for on eexcellent mixer who noticed this (just to 0), and he found it better... So is SMPTE just a good start - and how should one improve this? (our thought - use the feedback from a large number of mixers, and change the concensus areas - wait, maybe that's the SMPTE curve .. any recommendations for us on the SMPTE? Final installation Thursday and Friday.... Color test and regulations of the Christie 2210 on Friday, with the SMPTE sound tests and regulation as well.... ------- Marco, we decided to stick with the speakers we have for now... we ran tests to find the weak links...Hissing ...the processor... The occasional pop and splat - a dying track on the mixer.... so we are putting th money into a USL JSD-80, and the 3 used QSC's.... holding onto our Fstex in case we go for 7.1 (if we get the funding)... Our curent speakers, tested without the bad mixer line, seemed acceptable to our visiting mixers...all frequencies present... we'll really hear them after the new material is in... ------ they are ------ L/R - PSI Module 3012 IV 300 Watt, 8 ohm C - Sentry AVB Horn loaded system 8 ohm (electro voice inc buchanan michigan), and oversized old schools for the surround... ---------  |  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.