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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Screen: Common Height or Common Width? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  11  12  13

Author Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width? Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-23-2014 07:31 AM                     Perhaps the person specifying filters looked at the back of their old TekTronix oscilloscope and saw the washable and recyclable metal filter. They probably didn't use the spray coating though as then you had to clean the filter much more often. The metal screen filter without the spray is, indeed, not very effective at trapping small particles from the air stream.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-23-2014 09:27 AM                     Yes, Those Tektronix air filters worked good!! The metal was like compressed Brillo without the soap on it. The NEC metal air filters however... just like a screen door.  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-23-2014 04:55 PM                     Mark, That looks like the frame and screen to keep the replaceable filter from entering the air chamber. Isn't there another filter part that goes with these? Our big air handler has a frame like this behind two thicknesses of regular fiberglass filter frames. The frame and screen just keeps the real filters from being sucked into the fan.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 04-23-2014 06:45 PM                     We have two, 65ft screens where I'm using two 4K BARCO 32B burning 65BA bulbs in them for these screens. True, these BARCO's with their fine mesh, stainless steel filter, makes the filter cleaning task easy since they're washable filters, but not the best in containing real fine dust where I have to wipe out the module placement area and inside the lamp module itself when doing bulb changes. One house is 3D with the XL slider in front and our good ol' directional friend, the silver screen. I wish that the owners went the extra mile in going anamorphic so all of that 1.2" chip could be used for our scope presentations and get a great image on the non 3D white screen. Big thing that really goes against using these units that my content is still 2K and I get folks coming out to holler "picture could use some sharpness in focusing"...and I'm sharp as a tack on the screen when shooting the Scheimflug test pattern on the screen to check focus on center and corners. I just tell them that I'll get on it, which satisfies them since their request was acknowledged. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-23-2014 07:21 PM                     Ken, Yea... that's what it resembles. The projector already has a grate where the filters sit so they can't be sucked down in. This is what led me to make the comment I did about some buyer at NEC ordering the wrong stuff... but they still had to use it for something. Monte... Your owners didn't even go ten blocks in building that place. Those lifts are a disgrace. Mark  |  IP: Logged Amanda Mundin Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK Registered: Sep 2005 posted 04-24-2014 04:22 AM                     In terms of scaling the 1.85 image to fit within the 2.39, obviously with 2K this would result in a drop in resolution, but if you had a 4K projector and scaled 1.85 to fit in the 2.39 image surely you would be able to attain exactly the same light levels for both formats, and for the current majority of 1.85 films which are 2K you wouldn't be dropping resolution because the resolution would be somewhere in the region of 3175 x 1716. You could always have a 2nd 1.85 setting for full 4K for the rarer occasion that you get a 1.85 4K film. Would this approach not be acceptable?  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 04-24-2014 04:20 PM                     Monte, I can't remember where the main blower in the projector is getting the air, but the air around the lamphouse is not filtered, that comes from the inlet grilles. I'm not discarding the barco filters as 'poor' to be honest. They need to be kept clean, and with greasy air or fine pullution dust (London) they clog up till the point you can't see through them anymore. They need to be washed every how and then. I'm convinced that if those filters were washed and vacuumed regularly, their performances wouldn't be so bad.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-24-2014 04:41 PM                     Amanda, Yes/No. Generally, that is not how scaling works. If things are on even multiples of a resolution, the scale works out better. However, going from a 1080 and having it scale to 2160 (non-obtrusive scale) but then back down to 1714...that is where you will lose resolution. The 1714 does not accurately represent either 1080 or 2160. It isn't like with a grain structure like film where if you have more resolution, capture the lower resolution in its entirety, digital like 1:1 mappings...once a pixel is morphed into multiple pixels...it doesn't morph back so cleanly. You are asking it to present flat at 79% as big so some of those pixels are not going to be clean. The number of 4K movies are going to grow so, at best it is a very short term idea. On the filtration front...none are perfect and only NEC puts any filtration on the lamp itself. Barco, on the C series has a fan that has nothing but a bug filter in front of it to blow on the cathode side of the lamphouse. Personally, I don't find that Barco's wire mesh filters do an adequate job...I think they would be dramatically improved if there was a pre-filter on the outside of the projectors.  |  IP: Logged Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 04-25-2014 06:08 PM                     I am in favor of a screen that masks in all four sides, for example, if the flat setting was switched to scope, the screen will get wider, but a little narrower. I am also in favor of that screen having different presets for 1.37, 1.66, 2.20, and other obscure ratios that are different from the two standards. The kind of screen I had in mind was Screen #2 in the AFI Silver at Silver Spring, MD. Here is the screen set for 1.37 and 2.39 respectively. There is a Cobb plex I used to frequent often before Alamo opened in Ashburn. All the screens are common width, except for Screen #11 which is common height. The first two films I remember seeing in #11, namely after the Auro upgrade, were Turbo and Ender's Game. Both films were in scope and used the screen to its full potential. I distinctively remember Turbo (in 2D) looking marvelous, colorful, and clean, more so than what I was used to at this plex. The projector was a Barco 2K model, as do all of the screens. Something about this presentation was so special than my previous trips, add to that with the 11.1 sound which is no Atmos but unique is its own right. Months later, I caught a matinee of Ender's Game at the same theater, same screen. The Summit Entertainment logo that opened the film was so bright I almost had to shield my eyes. Just fantastic picture and the sound, also 11.1, was also improved. But it was a different tune for Mr. Peabody and Sherman, same theater, same screen. This time, the film was in flat, and it was masked as such, but lo and behold, black borders around the four corners of the projected image. It had not filled up the screen. The sound also took a huge step down. I even noticed some aliasing in the image whereas it was minimized in the past two scope films. About the sound, I assumed the front left and right channels were obscured by the masking, resulting in the lackluster sound. There might be another factor obscuring the sound, but that's what I thought. It was a depressing night for some AV perfectionist like myself. So be careful about sound positioning when it comes to common height. My solution was to install five speakers behind the screen, but since #11 in Cobb is Auro that would make ten speakers. I then was reading this thread, learning about anamorphic lenses in digital cinema. Could it be that #11 in Cobb Village 12 uses an anamorphic lens? I can't really contact anybody who works there, but seeing how flat films with appropriate masking were projected with those borders and scope films filled up the entire screen, the only other reason could be the projector being too close or too far away.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 04-25-2014 07:54 PM                     personally I like taller screens  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-25-2014 08:23 PM                     Hmmmm....those pictures look a bit familiar...oh yeah...they're mine! FWIW...in DCinema, AFI/Silver screens 1 and 2 use anamorphic lenses for Scope DCPs and they both have 5-screen channels and do switch between the sets between flat and scope. The 5-screen channels were original installed for SDDS-8 and 70mm (theatre #1). However, acoustically transparent masking should negate any significant attenuation on the HF if one has Left and Right behind masking on Flat movies...like in the AFI #3. Note, AFI 1 only has movable masking on three sides...the bottom is fixed.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 04-25-2014 10:02 PM                     ^ yeah watching the screen drop down to 2.76 for 'Khartoum'(70mm) was a bit disappointing - wish it had expanded horizontally. Well at least the plus was hearing the 6-track sound (5 front channels) that music score was just gorgeous. (that brought back fond memories of the 8-SDDS 'music' scores of 'Interview with a Vampire' and 'Immortal Beloved') yeah the Cobb Village 12 presentation of 'Mr. Peabody and Sherman' was a let down in both how it was projected on the screen AND the Auro mix - it didn't make me want to go back there. Interestingly the Bow Tie Reston BTX screen is a fixed constant height 2.35 screen - I didn't see 'The Life of Pi' screening there, but I wonder how they did the flying fish sequence when the screen jumped to 2.35 to 1.85  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-26-2014 09:13 AM                     Really? Just where did you want the screen expand to? The Silver was built in a 1.37 era...the front end is in front of the original proscenium to get it as wide as legally possible and stay faithful to the Art Deco decor of the original front-end. As it is, we have the "walls" move out to reveal yet more screen. They also were faithful to the Ultra Panavision ratio of the feature and didn't crop or show it without the anamorphics. So THIS is what disappoints you? This is what should have PLEASED you...that they didn't mutilate the picture (or sound) and presented it in its original format. The AFI strives to show all content in as close to original format as possible. They are not going to put in an Uptown-esque front end for the very rare UP70 movie that may show up. The vast majority of their rep content is anywhere from 1.37 to current 2.39. I guess you would be disappointed if you saw a 1.37 rep title at the Uptown and the masking was closed down so the feature just used a 1/3 of its massive Cinerama screen. Though most people liked it just fine when we ran rep titles there (Fantasia, Wizard of Oz and the WB festival). While there are places like the Seattle Cinerama that will put in an alternate front-end for a particular format...even those are compromises. I think the AFI/Silver does VERY well at trying to present all content as it was intended given the vast diversity of content it runs.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-26-2014 12:17 PM                     Steve, what he is saying is that he is disappointed to walk into the room, see a screen size, then watch as it got smaller. The solution is to never let patrons into the auditorium until the screen is masked to the smallest size that any portion of the presentation will be using. This means for common width people, shrink the stupid preshow picture down before scope movies!!! The Film-Tech DCS does this as soon as the previous show ends in anticipation of the next show. Having the picture get larger in front of the audience is fine, but it should never get smaller.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-26-2014 12:33 PM                     While I agree in principle...there is zero chance of having all of the preshow material be redone just for the odd UP70 movie. Furthermore, while the height would have come down...the preshow stuff is going to be 1.78 (video)...so the screen should have also gotten wider...total square area of the image should have been larger. The only things bigger on that screen would have been 35mm 2.39 or 70mm 2.20 (same width, only taller). 70mm was set up as the biggest picture.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  11  12  13

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.