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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing (Page 6)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Author Topic: Auro 11.1 - Its Rollout & Marketing Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-05-2014 02:10 PM                        quote: Idiotic article The movie will be released in theaters internationally beginning April 16 and domestically on May 2. The move will no doubt increase the number of movie theatres available to show the movie. Say what? Sorry my screen JUST ISN'T AVAILABLE to show the movie because it hasn't been released abroad 2 weeks before it was released in the US. Or, in case they are referring to being in both Barco 11.1 and Atmos 63.1: Sorry, we don't have either Atmos or that Barco thing. WE REFUSE TO PLAY THE MOVIE AT ALL!  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 02-05-2014 02:22 PM                     quote: Or, in case they are referring to being in both Barco 11.1 and Atmos 63.1: Sorry, we don't have either Atmos or that Barco thing. WE REFUSE TO PLAY THE MOVIE AT ALL! Freaking hilarious.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-09-2014 01:23 AM                        Is there any data on anamorphic attachment vs zoom lens, particularly regarding light efficiency? I refer to proper cinema common-height screens of course.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-09-2014 01:47 PM                     It is pretty cut and dried. An anamorphic lens will yield about 23% more light than zooming. Furthermore, if using an anamorphic means you don't have to shift your prime lens any, you gain on focus/shift accuracy since the prime lens need not move once it is set. I have used anamorphics in several venues...always a success.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-09-2014 11:52 PM                     Considering the throw-away nature of digital technology hardware, including d-cinema hardware, there's always a slim chance for the powers that be to go back and do 'scope right in some future generation of d-cinema. Doing 'scope right means starting with an anamorphic-based DCP, an image designed to fill the entire imaging chip. If it's 2K, that would mean a 2048 X 1080 image with a slight anamorphic squeeze applied to it so when it's unsqueezed it fills a full 'scope ratio screen. I see little point in taking the usual, cropped, lower resolution 2048 X 852 image and stretching it both vertically and horizontally. It makes me think of how terrible my non-anamorphic DVD of The Abyss looks blown up to fill a HDTV screen. Anamorphic widescreen DVDs look far better. What I'm imagining would involve a dual lens setup on the projector, one spherical for flat ratio movies and a 1.25x lens for unsqueezing 'scope DCP content. Two lenses tailored for more specific aspect ratio duties wouldn't have to be nearly as big as these single lens setups trying to cover all bases. I think there would have to be some possibility of cost savings there. IMHO, if 'scope continues to be treated the way it is being treated in commercial cinemas it isn't going to be around in the long term. Eventually everything will just fill these common width screens that aren't significantly different in shape than home HDTV screens. I don't mind 'scope movies being letterboxed on HDTV at home. I can live with that. I don't think it's acceptable in the commercial movie theater environment. Scope should be handled better.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-10-2014 12:37 AM                        Thanks Steve. And I agree with Bobby, but the video forces behind digital cinema look at the world through 16x9 glasses while film makers continue to compose for 2.4 and think that it will be wider in the cinema, not smaller. Xenons available for my Barco are 1.2K and 2K. In my little cinema, the 2K Xenon slightly washes out flat images and the 1.2K is just right. When the lens is zoomed to Scope the 1.2K doesn't quite cut it, in my opinion. Given the extra cost and power consumption of a 2K over a 1.2K, an anamorphic option might pay for itself over 20 years and give us the little extra brightness we seek. Quotes are coming, so I will keep you posted.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 02-10-2014 02:49 AM                     Ron, regarding your 1.2k, 2k issue, digital projection was designed to make efficient use of the of the 16x9 imager, I am assuming you are common height based on your comment earlier. With your zoom lense, you are knocking off about 20% of light and 20% of your image resolution when in scope with either a 1.2k or 2k bulb. This is the complete reverse of the principles of 35mm where the flat image had less light hitting the screen and scope had more light hitting the screen. As sad as it is, I know you don't want to hear it and I don't want to say it but if you were common width (assuming you had a really large wall) you would have to no issues with your 2k bulb lighting up both flat and scope images. The perfect scenario for you would be (common height of course) a prime lense for flat and an anamorphic lense for scope, I'm assuming you would still be using a 1.2k bulb. In this scenaio your projector would be running 98% efficient for flat and a full 100% efficient for scope. In scope you would be getting 2048x1080p from the imager and 1998x1080p for flat. You should also get better bulb life and effiency as your imager and projector where designed to run most efficient when using the whole imager and light source.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-10-2014 05:47 AM                     So you know, Moving Image Technologies makes an Anamorphic mount for their "XL Mover" so the whole process can be automated. If you have an NEC, then I believe they still offer their anamorphic mover too. Barco does not and Christie discontinued their MALMs. In my opinion, common height screens should all use anamorphics for scope to keep the light difference between flat and scope in a tolerable range. However, the "payback" of the anamorphic on lower wattage lamps, in your case 1.2 - 2KW, is horribly long. You are speaking of 20-years and I don't think your equipment will be operating in 20-years. If it is, it will likely not be supported such that any failure could take you down. Nobody is promising that sort of longevity anymore. Even if the projector manufacturers wanted to (and they likely don't...they want to sell more projectors), the various semiconductor manufacturers they use don't have life cycles that long. At some point I did th math on payback for anamorphics and in the 4.5 versus 6KW/6.5 KW range, the payback was very fast (just a couple of years for a matinée theatre)...but on the low-end it is extremely long. If you have a Barco, and if you have lamp prices similar to what we have in the US...then the payback is never. We sell the DXL-12BAF and the DXL-20BAF/L for the SAME price and the DXL-20BAF/L now has a longer warranty than the 12! So your only saving is in electricity and likley not enough to offset lamp life. That said, I still think anamorphics on common height screens come away looking better.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-10-2014 09:45 AM                     D-cinema gear lasting 20 years? Not very likely with so much computer-based stuff inside. After about 10 years of time any number of components will be obsolete and no longer have replacement parts made. If just one key obsolete part fails then the device is turned into a door stop. I've heard of 35mm film based theaters keeping things like old DTS-6 machines alive. But they're usually only alive because other still good parts have been cannibalized out of other DTS machines put into mothballs. D-cinema gear is a little more complicated and not quite as abundant in terms of spare systems just laying around in storage.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-10-2014 01:30 PM                     What is so puzzeling is that a industry that is profit driven and the most profitable movies on average are in the scope format any theatre designs for constant width  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-10-2014 02:01 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson D-cinema gear lasting 20 years? Not very likely with so much computer-based stuff inside. And why not? DTS players and a lot of Dolby gear lasted longer than that. How long it all lasts is really up to T.I. and the ancillary manufacturers. Projector manufacturers can pull the plug but T.I. can support it all if they want to with out them. I can see servers disappearing completely from the scene and large full size rack mounted servers are already dinosaurs of the past anyway. Next step would be a direct link to distribution via satellite. Ya still need the same projector though. Mark  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 02-13-2014 03:02 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen And why not? I don't think anyone really knows the lifespan of digital gear. I am sure the projectors are built to last.But you are right, there is a lot gear out there that is still going strong. quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Next step would be a direct link to distribution via satellite. I think internet downloading at the theatre will be the next step.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-13-2014 05:30 PM                        Satellite is already happening. Just not in the majority of places, yet. Internet isn't reliable enough or fast enough yet for the size files required. And even when it is, it'll probably scare the studios to death ... considering they don't even like to ship out a hard drive without a silly code name and a plastic zip tie to "secure" it.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-11-2014 03:00 PM                     Bump. Are any Auro 11.1 equipped theaters in the United States actually playing Mr. Sherman & Peabody in Auro 11.1? According to the Auro 3D web site not very many theaters in North America are equipped with Auro 11.1 capable sound systems. Most of those installations are at Cinemark sites, presumably in their "XD" premium priced houses. Mr. Sherman & Peabody had the unfortunate timing of opening the same weekend as 300: Rise of an Empire. The 300 sequel, which has an Atmos mix but no Auro mix, grabbed most of the premium priced screens in the country. Just about every one of Cinemark's "XD" screens are playing the 300 sequel. Mr. Sherman & Peabody has both Atmos and Auro mixes. In order to hear that animated movie in Atmos one typically must visit a theater with more than one Atmos equipped screen. There are some, but not very many, sites with 2 or more Atmos screens. I'm not aware of any theater in North America with two or more Auro equipped screens. It looks like anyone wanting to check out Auro 11.1 will have to wait until May when the next Spiderman sequel is released. Need For Speed doesn't appear to have any next generation sound mix, but it will likely move the 300 sequel off most non-IMAX branded premium screens this Friday.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 03-11-2014 07:11 PM                     This just goes to show that the chains really do not give a shit about Auro 11.1 Auro has absolutely no chance at ever becoming successful. Dolby Atmos on the hand is a different story, it does have the potential at becoming somewhat relevant, but I think the chains have realized that comfy reclining faux chairs and giant wall to wall movie screens with no masking and RealD 3D apparatuses still attached to 2D showings is more important than a sound format that can place sound at one or more individual speakers in the auditorium. (in average customer language "Who gives a shit about Atmos, my seats are more comfy) Anyways, for those who want to see the weekly new release in Atmos, they should just visit the theatre near me as they advertise and play everything every week in Ass-mos. Or do they?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

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.