|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-20-2014 03:43 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
That's rediclous! I still do not have a single customer (out of over 200) that runs their lamps past warranted life, perhaps you do. Ushio's never have any problem at all even when running at full power their entire warranted time.
I do indeed have customers that try to get more out of the lamps than warranted hours...that is their business decision to make. I don't endorse it...just respect it.
As to Ushios or any other xenon lamp...the lamp will decay over time...period. The harder you run them, the faster the decay...again, there is no room for debate...their characteristics are we documented by many (including myself).
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
MOST DLP projectors made today are so light efficient that there is little one can do to increase their operating efficiency
What a silly statement. I news for you...I can make ANY DLP projector 23% more light efficient on Scope...just use an Anamorphic lens! It is a proven fact...it helps ALL of them...regardless of resolution.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
All you can really do is try to shift that operating point with lamp vs. screen gain however, thats's a basic calculation we all make on every job.
One...it is more than a basic calculation and anyone that tells a client that merely changing screen gain has them meet light levels is incompetent. The light requirement is NOT just 14fL...it is 14fL in the Center and no worse than 85% of center on the sides/corners. Any gain above 1.2-1.3 is NOT going to meet that on a flat screen. A matte-white screen will meet it easily and is what every flat screen should be if they want proper light distribution. If they want their image to look like the one that the studio said was correct.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The extra money spent on an anamorphic and changer would for the most part get you into a 4 K NC-3240 anyway which will trample any 2K projector with an anamorphic lens.
Oddly enough...our primary anamorphic contenders are those that are also in a 4K situation too. However your argument misses the point that ANY system that is based on a 1.8963 ratio imager does better with an anamorphic on scope when it comes to the light.
So lets take that 50-foot wide screen...that would have a screen height of almost 21 feet...Allowing for some lamp decay after it is first installed and using round numbers, one is going to need about 17,000 lumens for Flat and 27,000 lumens for Scope. You aren't going to hit that lumen count for scope with just a 4.5KW lamp...you are heading up to a 6KW (or 7KW for an NEC). Plunk an anamorphic in there...the Scope demands drop to 22,000 lumens. For everyone other than NEC...that is in the 4.5KW range...for NEC is is back to the 6KW range.
But the math applies at any level. Looking at the smaller theatre in this example. For Flat we only need about 10,000 lumens (that is an NEC with a whopping 4KW lamp...admittedly their long-life version that performs like a 3KW)...for the rest we are talking borderline 2KW/3KW or a high brightness 1.8KW or 2KW. For Scope...we are up to 16,000 lumens. No matter how you cut it, you are in to either a 4KW lamp or a high-brightness/expensive 3KW. With an NEC, it would be a 4KW lamp that lasts about 600-hours. Put an anamorphic in there, you are down to about 13,000 lumens...that is safely in everyone (but NEC) 3KW lamp. For NEC, the medium 4KW lamp will do that is rated at 1000 hours.
As for contrast loss in an anamorphic versus 4K...I have not done the comparison but to my eyes, that isn't the case. 4K does have other anomalies (in DLP)...including lack of uniformity in color or light distribution...though there are SCC files available for some light engines (Barco in particular) that should mitigate it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 04-20-2014 08:43 PM
Is NEC ever the best solution? I was at a very freshly remodeled Marcus Theaters location watching Non-Stop in their large-format screen with Dolby Atmos. EVERYTHING was great(beautiful auditorium, great seats, sound, lobby, etc), except for two things. No masking, and a strangely flat, not-so-crisp, vivid lacking image. I knew right away it wasn't a Barco or Christie, but didn't know what it was until the large format specific Marcus Theater trailer came on advertising NEC. I let out a large disappointed sigh. A peek into the port later verified this, though I wasn't in doubt. The brand new NECs we have also under preform the much older Barco DP2ks we have.
I hate to say it, but it kind of 'ruined' an otherwise great outing.
My friends, "movie theater newbies", EVEN MENTIONED it afterwards without any solicitation from myself.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 04-21-2014 08:42 AM
Getting back at the essential discussion regarding Common Height or Common Width:
My personal favorite aspect ratio is scope. And as Geoff already mentioned, I also don't suspect that any filmmaker will shoot his feature in scope because he wants to have it presented "less high".
It's also an experience that cannot easily recreated at home, so it is still something special. But it is only special if scope is really LARGE, if it looks like a narrow band in front of the room, you might as well say home and cope with the letterboxing on your HD TV set.
Most humans have two eyes, placed side by side. We don't know exactly why that happened, but it has probably something to do with our primarily planar movements. Most dangers come from the side, not from below or above. Our vision is wide, not tall.
So, if we want to simulate how reality feels, then wider is almost certainly better than taller. It's by all means more... *immersive* (there is that word again).
This discussion isn't entirely new, but it feels stupid that scope has a lower resolution than flat. Back in the 1.3K digital days, scope features used a scope lens and non-square pixels. Sure, this 1.3K was a horrible resolution, but during the transition to DCI, we lost something somewhere.
The anamorphic presentation of scope features right now just feels a bit awkward too. You're already working close to the limits regarding resolution and the first thing you do is you're going to stretch it across your imager. This digital stretching is what worries me, because no matter how good your algorithm is, you're going to hurt the quality of the image and giving up sharpness and detail for more light in return.
Also, the only setups I know are using this Christie WCL thing. It isn't a separate new lens, it "swivels" in front of your existing lens. While the end result might be perfectly acceptable, it cannot be as light efficient and perfectly adjusted as a single, purpose built lens.
Also, I've only seen this thing in action with a Z-Screen, how does it cope with RealD XL?
quote: Mark Hajducki
I have seen bad installations where the lense remains static and the image is scaled to fit the screen. In some screens which were neither constant width or height all the aspect ratios were scaled.
Unfortunately, those kind of setups are on the rise... In that case, flat often even has a lower resolution than scope.
I don't know why people choose such a setup, but probably because they either are not aware of the consequences or they value the capability of rapid aspect-ratio-switching more than resolution and the potential of nasty scaling artifacts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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