Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Screen: Common Height or Common Width? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 12 13

Author

Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 04-21-2014 11:04 AM

Marcel, although I'm not advocating people do this, I think the general concern for those setups is if the anamorphic mover fails or if it doesn't always lock down dead-on to the same position. If the screen is really big and the throw is short, a small variance will throw things off. On the plus side, light levels between flat and scope are identical.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-21-2014 11:16 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
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.

The scaler thing really isn't an issue...it is a simple multiplication type scale. Which is the most benign. But before you guess at its issues...why not look at one to see for yourself. I sure have. You'd be hard pressed to find that the system with the anamorphic lens looks any worse than the one without. In fact, most have found just the opposite. Rarely, when a lens is zoomed out does the image improve...quite the contrary, the image is forced to be on the thinner parts of the glass which are typically more prone to aberrations.

The WCL lens is just a straight magnifier. We have a couple of those on series 1 projectors. They did okay for their day but didn't benefit in the light department...they only overcame the limited zoom range of the prime lens. With Anamorphic lenses one also only swings it in place for Scope...and swing out for flat (or slide side-to-side as the case may be).

Again, on the anamorphic front...try it...you'll like it. As for Real-D XL...I suspect that one may have spacing issues as well as image size issues plus one is now hanging an awful lot of weight on the front of the projector.

Here is one on a 4K Christie.

| IP: Logged

Ron Ellis
Film Handler

Posts: 20
From: In my Home Theater in Concord California
Registered: Feb 2014

posted 04-21-2014 11:32 AM

Shouldn't the ceiling also be black? I can see what appears to be quite a bit of light reflection on the 2nd picture.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-21-2014 11:50 AM

Again, and as I said, I have no issue with doing this if it's absolute quality one is after. But I'd still be more likely to stick that extra ten grand into either 4K or what is usually an older and sometimes ailing sound system. People notice good sound way before they will notice you having an anamorphic in the optical chain.

Also

quote: Steve Guttag
As for Real-D XL...I suspect that one may have spacing issues as well as image size issues plus one is now hanging an awful lot of weight on the front of the projector.

I've installed a lot of X-L attachments and there are no real issues with it and weight on any projector I have installed it on. It is also an attachment that stays aligned once it has been aligned... I was very skeptical of that part at first. NEC actually has the best deal going there with the X-L because it literally becomes attached to the projector's chassis.

For Barko they may include an entire new front with new air filter made out of metal instead of plastic that it attaches to and it is very sturdy and if not a little bit difficult to install the first time around!

For Christie they include an entire extension shelf unit and new legs that attaches to the front of the existing Christie pedestal. Even for the little NC-900 there is a plan whch mouts it to the pedestal... even the Kelmar pedestal! With Real-D's new huge Chunk-O-Change up front policy for the exhibitor I doubt I will likely be installing any more, it'll likely be Master Image instead.

Allow 18" projector to wall clearance, and you may also have to enlarge your port... usually by moving the top of the port upwards. If you have an adjustable height pedestal like the Eprad M-9000 them you might be able to slightly drop the projector and re-align.

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-21-2014 12:21 PM

Barco filters made of plastic?

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 04-21-2014 12:32 PM

No, Marco. They sure aren't.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-21-2014 05:56 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
For Barko they may include an entire new front with new air filter made out of metal instead of plastic

Gosh Marco... I think you need to go learn to read all over again. But the air filters are pretty much worthless anyway except at keeping bugs out...

| IP: Logged

Ken Lackner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1907
From: Atlanta, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 04-22-2014 04:33 AM

Mark, I read your post the same way Marco did. It isn't clear that you are referring to the front cover of the projector as being made of plastic and not the filters themselves. I was wondering what the heck you were talking about.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-22-2014 06:24 AM

Mark also didn't read my whole statement...I was commenting on the question of an anamorphic AND an XL together...since the XL would need to be spaced in front of the anamorphic...there may be spacing issues as well as the weight of the Anamorphic, mover, XL and possible mover...you have an awful lot of weight up there.

As for the $10K...it benefits the exhibitor since once installed, it reduces their operating costs on lamps, electricity. The industry got it wrong to have an imager that does not conform to Flat or Scope and got it really wrong when it figured that the image that was supposed to be largest would receive the smallest resolution and light. It is the exact opposite of what was learned in the '50s. At least when film's 1.85 format and "Scope" formats settled out...the light output was similar though Scope was more efficient. With DCinema...it is totally wacked where there is a great disparity between the two. The anamorphic lens cuts that disparity in half.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-22-2014 08:56 AM

There's one bright side to all of this: since digital projectors have a much shorter life span than film projectors there is at least some slim chance the ridiculous way 'scope is treated in d-cinema will be corrected in the future.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-22-2014 09:00 AM

Without anamorphics...the issue will remain that light sources, particularly cheap ones, tend to put out round shaped light. Scope being rectangular tends to made this difficult.

For film cinema, "beam spreaders" were often tried with 70mm with mixed results of getting an even light across a rectangular aperture.

You also have the fact that a great many/majority of theatres are now geared towards a 1.85 picture rather than a scope one. For those cinemas, this is a non-issue since the light difference between flat and scope is practically non-existent.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-22-2014 09:23 AM

At least with D-cinema, it is possible to have different lamp output settings to easily balance the light output between the flat and scope picture. (Yes, this can be done with film, too, but I know of no one who ever bothered.)

But, yes, having lower resolution for the bigger picture is silly.

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-22-2014 04:55 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
But the air filters are pretty much worthless anyway except at keeping bugs out...

As NEC's are - and they're expensive.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-22-2014 06:36 PM

DCPs should be optimised for Scope, with other formats falling within that width. It worked for film projection - remember Enchanted, The Horse Whisperer, etc.? We could then have just one beautiful prime lens and side masking to cope with everything from 1.33.

Cinemas that get high on constant width could use a zoom for flat.

Purists could argue for a 2.2 standard but that would be wasteful 99% of the time.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-22-2014 09:16 PM

quote: Marco Giustini
As NEC's are - and they're expensive.

The NEC metal filters are worthless. The mesh is so coarse it wouldn't even stop large insects from being sucked in!! What were they thinking? Some material buyer at NEC ordered the wrong stuff for some equipment's and they had to get rid of it some where...

The HEPPA filters are the only way to go, especially in this desert area which is dirty and dusty. The HEPPA's are not expensive over here any more. Six USD each at best. Most of my sites change them twice a year. A few sites actually change them four times a year. All the projectors still look like brand new on the inside and no grease or oil dripping from the negative lamp connectors like you sometimes see in Christie projectors. It's always that projector at the top of the stairs that gets the popper oil the worst.

quote: Steve Guttag
I was commenting on the question of an anamorphic AND an XL together

I wasn't ignoring you. The X-L Christie pedestal adaptor would work fine for that purpose as I stated. It is easily adaptable to other pedestals as well because it is fully adjustable. Real-D has a solution for every projector Steve... Now if they only came up with a solution that exhibitors could actually afford!

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 12 13

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.