|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-06-2015 04:41 PM
quote: Gary Lightfoot
I completely agree that using the full imager frame and 1.25 anamorphics is relatively easy to do (I do it at home and I'm just an enthusiast), but the multiplexes don't seem to want to spend the money or maybe train the staff. It's all about bottom line to them by the looks of things.
Right now Hollywood movie studios are giving theater operators zero reason for investing in anamorphic projection setups. The movie studios must first start creating their content in higher resolution, anamorphic enhanced fashion. Once that's in place movie theater operators who can upgrade their projection systems can consider doing so.
At the theatrical end it should not require any more than a firmware update. DCP playback would default to down-scaled 'scope for all the projection systems. Those who have anamorphic setups can enable the anamorphic playback setting.
quote: Gary Lightfoot
It drives me crazy too. I wouldn't have a constant width projection set up at home because it's completely wrong to do such a disservice to scope, removing the entire concept of being the biggest widest presentation (other than IMAX I guess) but the general public doesn't seem to know or care, and they still pay the money to see a substandard presentation. A small, crappy 16:9 screen with no masking.
They just don't know any better. The general public is also into brand worship. That's how IMAX can fool people into spending upwards of $20 or even more for a moderately big image with no better than HDTV resolution. They've been riding on the coat tails of the large format heritage they built showing 15-perf 65mm filmed content projected in 15-perf 70mm. They call both the film and digital versions "IMAX" and hope the customers won't bother to notice the fuzzy, detail lacking inferiority of the digital version.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Of course it is about the bottom line, (that is what is usually is about) but studios made sure to put in a DCI requirement that scope DCPs were not distributed with an anamorphic requirement
Movie studios are really the ones saving money on fake 'scope.
They render 1 million fewer pixels with 2K fake scope and 2 million fewer pixels with 4K fake scope. It's disgusting how classic 70mm films have been handled on DCP: window-boxed in a 1.85:1 container and probably sourced from Blu-ray AVC encodes instead of an uncompressed master. Then when you consider the generally derivate nature of the movie storylines themselves (assembled with Save the Cat beat sheet templates, just like clip art), there is no question studios are cutting corners where they can. Yet they feel totally entitled to price gouge the customers and generally take them for granted.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
This sums it up perfectly, they don't care and I have always believed that because they see the giant PLF screen when the enter the cinema, they have the perception that the screen and presentation is superior.
People used to perceive the Earth was flat too.
quote: Dave Macaulay
Losing the theatrical-only release window will eliminate one good reason for going to a cinema. Making the presentation crappy will hardly help. Once day-and-date comes we will see how many people cherish the cinema experience.
Much of the movie industry as we know it would disappear if the studios embrace simultaneous day and date release between theaters and home video. Commercial theaters will fail in droves immediately. Then the studios themselves, no longer be buoyed by the theatrical platform, would be unable to finance productions of any significance. In the end, we would be left with the cable networks and streaming providers like Netflix.
But with as shitty a job Hollywood is doing with the "digital movie-going experience" I can't say that I would miss it all that much. The forms of movie presentation I loved are gone now. Today we have TV in public. I can watch TV at home for a lot less money, a lot less distraction and a lot more convenience.
Movie studios and movie theaters need to do a more professional job with the movie-going experience. The movie industry should count itself lucky when it gets paying customers who don't care about quality or know the details. But those customers who don't know any better would be the very first customers lost in a day and date release scheme. With the picture quality no better than Blu-ray at home, customers who do care about the details will be lost as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 05-06-2015 04:50 PM
quote: Dave Macaulay
Once day-and-date comes we will see how many people cherish the cinema experience.
I saw at HMV today a sign saying "Pre-order Pitch Perfect 2" which hits theaters May 15th.
quote: Dave Macaulay
IMAX, Dolby, other brands, and some chains are trying to provide an enhanced experience - higher quality projection, multi-channel sound (available in home systems now or soon though), better seats..
Totally agree ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The IMAX with Laser presentation at the Scotiabank is the best digital viewing experience possible today.
quote: Dave Macaulay
but young people seem happy seeing a movie on a tablet or a phone with their tinny sound: will they care?
The young people do care, but the younger generation have discovered for themselves that not EVERYTHING needs or requires them to see it in a movie theater. They will see certain movies in a movie theater.
quote: Martin McCaffery
Alas, I do not think the powers that be in the movie industry do
I think they are aware, however the studios know all too well that it makes no difference to most people if there is a masking, anamorphics, Dolby Atmos, or even IMAX. It is a very small percentage of the audience that really cares.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 05-06-2015 06:35 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
It is a very small percentage of the audience that really cares.
We did the Avengers 3D double feature on Thurs, and I forgot the first one was in FLAT when I ran this in 2012, and in 35mm, yet this second one was in 'scope.
Yet,I never could figure out why the first one and a strong action flick, would be in FLAT.
And granted, it was great to see a digital feature fill the entire screen with an image where you get a second one giving the "Letterbox" image (and back to the masking discussion if we allowed it to).
Yet, nobody made any comment on how both features were presented - they just loved the feature.
(Oh, they did love seeing SW:VII trailer in 3D...!)
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason Whyte
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 132
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 05-07-2015 04:31 PM
It's amazing to me how digital projection SHOULD make things easier, yet months ago I went to a 2D screening of THE LEGO MOVIE that not only had its masking pushed all the way out to flat, but the 3D lens was still left on the projector. The theater was full and no one noticed. But I did. And wound up leaving and watching something else.
"People don't notice/care" is not an excuse to me, and no theater management should ever have that philosophy either. I am aware the majority of moviegoers today don't know any better. It doesn't mean proper projection standards shouldn't be ignored, either, no matter how many theaters your complex has.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The IMAX with Laser presentation at the Scotiabank is the best digital viewing experience possible today.
Sorry, but 99.9% of the people on this forum would disagree with you on that. Many individual locations offer a superior theatrical presentation for many reasons (better use of projector bulbs, lenses, masking etc) other than an extra resolution bump by way of a few lasers.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-07-2015 09:52 PM
Laser will obviously offer a noticeable improvement over Xenon-based projection, but at a really high price.
How much more focused or not will the image be? Aside from the dark gray blacks my bigger complaint with d-cinema has been deliberately blurry, slightly out of focus images. Contrast, image sharpness and color brilliance is going to be only so good if the projector is dialed out of focus to hide a pixel grid or eliminate moire patterns due to the pixel grid clashing with the perf pattern on the screen. Film never had that problem since the film grain was randomly spread. The image could be focused as sharp as possible without fear of revealing a pixel grid or creating strange moire patterns.
IMAX doesn't have a corner on laser projection. Other theater chains are already installing laser-based projectors of their own. But there is some question as to whether those other theaters will be installing single or dual projectors. At least with IMAX (and Dolby Cinema as well) you'll know dual projectors will be in use.
A couple big problems with IMAX laser: 1.: they're not going to install it in all of the IMAX-branded theaters. The laser-based systems may only go into a small minority of theaters. 2.: IMAX appears to not be calling any notice to the new laser based systems on a specific theater by theater basis to let customers know which theaters have laser and which one don't. They want customers to guess all theaters with an IMAX logo on the building have the new laser systems. This is basically the same approach they did between real 15-perf 70mm IMAX and 2K Xenon LieMAX.
IMAX-branded theaters newly built for laser in mind will have taller screens, which will make all those 2.39:1 'scope movies from Hollywood even more excessively letter-boxed.
As good as laser might be, it's still going to be stuck with a fake 'scope image. It doesn't have to be that way. But it will take some fundamental changes happening first with those people who dictate standards (DCI, SMPTE, etc), then with movie studios and post production houses and then finally the movie theaters.
In some cases 'scope is already being shot "correct" in digital form. The Arri Alexi XT can shoot 4:3 anamorphic 2880 X 2160 and yield a 2K or 4K image that would conform to digital scope done right. At least one or more Red cameras can do the same thing as well as shoot spherical in 5120 X 2160 mode.
Maybe scope done right in d-cinema needs some kind of new buzzword or brand name to get any traction. "Super 2K" and "Super 4K" would kind of fit in with terms like "Super 35" and "Super 1.85" that have been used in the past.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-08-2015 06:42 AM
I've seen both the Dolby/Christie based laser solution and the Barco based laser solution, both in 2D and 3D. I cannot comment on the IMAX laser system yet. It pretends to work differently by projecting two different images over each other, which would then blend together to something never seen before. I'm wondering how this works in conjunction with 3D.
I guess laser fixes the brightness issues for larger screens, but I wouldn't say the image quality of those setup exceeds that of a powerful, well calibrated xenon digital setup on a "normal" sized screen.
So, the experience with regular DCI content, both 2K and 4K was good, but not transcendental.
I've also seen demos using the expanded color gamut those laser systems offer and while they look great, so did the first iteration of HFR demos. It remains to be seen how it looks in feature films. I'm hoping to catch Tomorrowland in "Dolby Vision".
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-08-2015 12:52 PM
From what I can tell, a laser based system tends to be about 25% higher in contrast than a xenon system so I could see how an image would improve on just that one change. That said, I'm comparing conventional RGB lasers instead of the Blue-Phosphorus lasers used on the lower-end projector. However, since one of the target projectors for the Blue-Phosphorus lasers (the NC900) has such horrible contrast (1600)...the blue phosphorus laser is only 1750 or just over 9% improvement (NC1100L). Lasers alone do not make the image that much better...it is also how they are implemented.
Note, by this time next year, Barco will have Blue-Phosphorus lasers for their "C" series projectors as a lamphouse replacement (they were showing a prototype at CinemaCon this year). I guess the "sell" is not having to fool with xenon lamps...I think the problem is...if the light improvement is only 9% or so, the laser system would have to be under $5,000 or cost wise, on the smaller projectors, you are going to spend less on xenon lamps with no real perceptible change in presentation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 05-09-2015 06:40 AM
Monte - in general, they are the same. A standard series2 DLP projector, with a laser light source replacing the previous Xenon bulb, mirror, integrator, etc.
There are some differences, e.g. while cheaper systems create more or less a white light source from blue laser + a phosphorus conversion unit, or the more expensive ones coupling RGB onto the DMD per individual color. But in general, they are 'normal' series 2 machines.
Now, Barco uses their own Alchemy server with their own integrated ICP, so there is no 'traditional' ICP board in those machines.
IMAX use a special setup to increase contrast and reduce pixel visibility far beyond the 'ordinary' laser projectors from Christie and Barco.
Then again, Christie is working with Dolby on a cascaded DLP light engine that should increase contrast, or, should I say, reduce black level, so that 'Dolby Vision' can be supported by these, and this seems to stay a Dolby/Christie proprietary technology. Don't know wether Christie will sell these under it's own brand later as an inprovement to their first generation laser projectors.
I'd say, 4k with increased brightness need to go with increased contrast, because the washed out blacks of conventional DLP 4k systems come out even worse with higher brightness.
The economics of the smaller phosphorous laser DLPs - I don't see them. I checked the numbers for the NEC NC-1100L and the laser version actually has worse economics than the UHP version. Then who actually cares about plugging in an UHP cartridge every 2500-3000hrs? The energy consumption of this laser unit is actually worse than that of its UHP counterpart, because the phosphorous light unit is less efficient than the UHPs. It's just a marketing trick to get a foot into that market.
I can see benefits of phosphor-conversion laser projectors in the business projector market, public spaces, etc., you may want the longest possible uninterrupted projection there, like machines going all day. But in the cinema, and especially with the minimal labour that an UHP lamp change means, and the fail safe that you have with two lamps...
With prices for Barco and Christie 'real' LIPs between 300.000 and 500.000 US$, the economics aspect is a bit more complicated - even with a stacked xenon setup, running two 6-7kW bulbs for 6 shows a day, they won't pay out bulb-wise.
However, these systems are usually installed only for very large screens, where even a 2*7kW Xenon can't light a 3D presentation properly. Now they can have a brighter 3D, and even without a silver screen, less ghosting with Dolby 3D (or whatever Christie call there's). Same is true for the larger IMAX venues.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-09-2015 07:08 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
Then again, Christie is working with Dolby on a cascaded DLP light engine that should increase contrast, or, should I say, reduce black level, so that 'Dolby Vision' can be supported by these, and this seems to stay a Dolby/Christie proprietary technology. Don't know wether Christie will sell these under it's own brand later as an inprovement to their first generation laser projectors.
Well, they actually brand their current "non cascading" setup also as being "Dolby Vision compliant". But they also promised upgrades to their existing Dolby Cinema theaters, once new and improved technology comes along. It remains to be seen if they keep this promise.
A cascading setup comes with an increased burden of an extra level of convergence, extra light loss and it will make this light engine one heck of an expensive device if you need to add three extra DLP chips.
I'm still wondering why nobody is actually considering laser scanning projectors. With modern MEMS technology, it's possible to achieve incredible scanning rates. A laser scanning projector should fix the contrast issues once and for all and could give you a virtually unlimited horizontal resolution.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13
|
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